Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from July 2000
On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 12:21:56PM -0400, kfox@vulpes.com wrote:
> Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> > Maybe C++ is still too low-level.
>
> rotfl. 1000 pages of specs and it's still too low-level?
I don't confuse "big" with "low-level." Aren't they fairly orthogonal
dimensions?
> 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.)
Good point.
> > 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.)
Yah, I envision something like that.
--
May the best description of competition prevail.
(via, but not speaking for Deutsche Bank)