Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2009
Re: p5 on the JVM
From: Reini Urban
August 22, 2009 05:02
Re: p5 on the JVM
Message ID: 4A8FDE57.firstname.lastname@example.org
Ben Evans schrieb:
> As quite a few of you are aware, a few of us have been working on approaches
> to putting perl5 on top of the JVM.
> We've decided to call it quits, but I didn't want to just disappear without
> explaining a little.
> First off, it was a very enjoyable exercise (and very informative for those
> of us working on it - just sorry we couldn't provide more useful artifacts
> for people not on the project).
> Secondly, we would strongly recommend that anyone who feels tempted to give
> this another go read some of our meagre outputs, and perhaps contact one of
> Thirdly, in many ways, I was surprised by how much could be done. Code
> generation is eminently possible, and while far from perfect, the JVM really
> is changing to fit the needs of more dynamic languages, (eg the forthcoming
> version 3 of the JVM spec is now totally decoupled from the Java language -
> the only linkage they are supposed to share is the .class format) and a lot
> of smart people are working hard to make that happen.
> The problem with Perl is parsing. In particular:
> Nullability - http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=663393 - I'm not sure I've
> fully grasped the full details of Jeffrey's argument as it related to
> Halting yet, but the basic point about nullability as discussed by him (and
> originally, I believe, Randal) stands as a big parsing problem.
> This combination of the language features - "does not require function
> prototypes" and "does not require brackets round function-call arguments" is
> not a happy one, from the point of view of static analysis. In my view, Perl
> further complicates this with the form of LIST which does not (always)
> require brackets round it, and possibly the comma operator's behaviour, but
> that's somewhat off topic.
> Lack of clean separation between parsing phases. This is more a problem for
> the automated parser-generator tools, but it does hugely increase the amount
> of work required to build an alternative implementation of Perl 5. If we
> can't really meaningfully use the existing (and extremely powerful) tools,
> then we're back to hand porting the parser components from C to Java (or
> bytecode). That's a huge barrier to entry. It's not insurmountable, the Ruby
> people did it, but it was a lot of work for them, and their community was,
> shall we say, somewhat more amenable to there being multiple
> Existing syntax missteps - Indirect object syntax, lack of clarity of BLOCK
> vs SUBREF vs closure and grep/map syntax all deserve a mention here. Now, I
> realise that all of these are too deeply ingrained to be fixed, so I'm not
> proposing that we do. I'm just pointing out how these language features,
> some of which have much broader use cases than the problem they were
> intended to solve, interact to basically make non-heuristic parsing and all
> forms of static analysis (that I can think of) basically impossible.
> So, those are all the reasons we stopped - too much would have to change in
> order to make a different implementation possible, and we felt that there
> would be too much ill-feeling generated if we were to seriously propose it.
Everybody knows that parsing valid perl5 is not to be done
again from scratch. Only PPI want that way, but for much simplier purposes.
Why didn't you just took the already parsed B optree and convert that to
I started a similar project for parrot, when I was still in the