develooper Front page | perl.bootstrap | Postings from July 2000

specific plan (was Re: Working Group Proposal)

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Joshua N Pritikin
Date:
July 20, 2000 13:45
Subject:
specific plan (was Re: Working Group Proposal)
Message ID:
20000720164531.H17718@ghostwheel.wks.na.deuba.com
On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 03:53:12PM -0400, kfox@vulpes.com wrote:
> Benjamin Stuhl wrote:
> > ... as performance is still somewhat of an issue (and
> > perl5, at least, eats immense amounts of memory even in C), I would propose
> > that the intermediate language (and that of the microperl6) be C, rather
> > than something higher level with more overhead.
> 
> Joshua already outlined an implementation, but here's a bit more
> detail of how it could work.

I'm not sure if you're trying to elaborate on my proposal or you're
coming up with something completely different.  In any case, I'll
contrast with what I was thinking.

> 1. A micro-perl compiler is written in micro-perl.

For the record, I never advocated writing a perl compiler in perl.  I
envisioned a three step process:

  perl code generator (in perl) => C/C++ compiler => perl

I'm not sure whether perl can be implemented in perl.  Even if it can,
why bother?

>    Micro-perl is an easily compiled
>    subset of Perl 5: No eval, no dynamic symbol table stuff, no BEGIN/END,
>    no overloading, no garbage collection, etc.

So can it do anything??

> This is a total change in direction from previous work done with Topaz.

Yes, well, my proposal was actually in a very similar direction in
comparison with Topaz.

Hope this helps.

-- 
May the best description of competition prevail.
      (via, but not speaking for Deutsche Bank)

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About