[cap-talk] How desirable / feasible is a persistent OCAP language?
toby.murray at comlab.ox.ac.uk
Thu Jul 17 07:13:04 CDT 2008
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 08:05 -0400, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> 1. Unless the language admits some notion of concurrency (examples: Ada,
> Java), there is a problem even talking about processes in language-based
I had interpreted Rob's question differently as pertaining to the use of
persistent operating system processes as a foundation on which to
implement persistent languages, rather than the use of a process
abstraction within a persistent language.
Rob, can you clarify your original question here?
More information about the cap-talk