Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from July 2000
Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > Perl5 => Intermediate Representation (C or C++ or Obj-C) => Perl6 Oooh... Then all the academics would *have* to take Perl seriously. I mean that's *conclusive proof* that Perl6 is a research project... ;) > Chip's Topaz idea was to use C++ instead of C. Which was (and still is) a good decision for all the many reasons Chip has talked about. > Maybe C++ is still too low-level. rotfl. 1000 pages of specs and it's still too low-level? (But perhaps in this age of a decoded human genome I shouldn't confuse low-level with smaller and simpler?) I think one of the problems with C++ is that it's too high-level for implementing some critical features like dynamic module loading. There's just too much freedom in implementing a C++ compiler (yes, bondage and discipline only applies to the followers, not the high priests.) > I propose that perl6 be written exclusively in perl5. The scheme48 project had a very good experience writing the core in a reduced dialect of scheme. This reduced dialect could be "easily" translated to a machine representation (they used C). I would support a similar implementation of perl6. (The reduced perl could be the ultra-portable microperl.) - Ken