[cap-talk] How desirable / feasible is a persistent OCAP language?

[David Wagner]

Mark Miller writes:
>Hi Rob, my sense is that there is a general consensus that ocap languages
>should be made persistent. (This is of course a great opportunity for those
>who dissent from that consensus to speak up.)

I have no idea whether ocap languages should include persistence
as a feature.  There's often a cost to adding extra features to a
programming language, and I don't understand the benefits or the costs
well enough to know whether in this case it is worthwhile.  So while
I am not exactly dissenting from the alleged consensus, neither am
I prepared to sign onto it.

My impression is that there are plenty of domains where object
capabilities languages can provide benefits even without any support
for persistence.