simple modules

Brendan Eich brendan at
Tue Feb 2 11:24:22 PST 2010

On Feb 2, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:

> In particular, it would be bizarre for Harmony to have two distinct  
> and disjoint module systems, A and B, simply because module system A  
> was unnecessarily inappropriate for the ocap subset.

No one is proposing this. It would be bizarre. It's a false dilemma.

On the other hand, the second class "simple modules" proposal, plus  
the impending Context proposal, allows A and subset-A, as far as I can  
tell. But I'll let others say more.

> Since SES needs an ocap-compatible module system, and since this  
> module system must be within a subset of Harmony, it makes more  
> sense to me to start with the more constrained problem: Let's design  
> a module system B adequate for the needs of both SES and Harmony.  
> Once we understand the shape of that, then we can reexamine whether  
> Harmony still needs a second insecurable module system, or merely an  
> insecure superset of the secure module system.

Sorry, this is too biased and path-dependent a design approach. The  
space we are "searching" is large. We need to consider alternatives at  
both layers, and where possible avoid too much layering.

Layering is a problem, not a solution.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list