Re: Working Group Proposal -Reply

My idea for a Perl interpreter is like this:

  [Code Parser]  ->  [Intermediate Representation of the Code]->
  ->[Interpreter runs Code]

So, what you are proposing is to have Perl (5 or 6) to parse de code,
and interpret the intermediate representation of the code? That will
really be slow...

We really can't go away from the C family of languages. The choice
must be between C++ and Objective C. Will Objective C be easy to
compile on Windows architectures? I don't know if Microsoft
compilers are Objective C prepared.

Another thought: it should be a language with good auto-documentation
features (similar to javadoc), to help people to understand the code.


Regards,
Joao Fonseca





>>> <abigail@delanet.com> 07/20/00 05:17pm >>>
On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 11:53:28AM -0400, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 11:29:34AM -0400, jdporter@min.net wrote:
> > Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> > > On a more serious note, will perl6 be written in C or C++?  If C, then I
> > > suggest that we avoid actually writing any C by hand, and instead write
> > > a perl5 code generator for each major component.
> > 
> > My humble suggestion: Objective C.
> 
> As a target for the code generator?  Sure, whatever.  Maybe a picture
> will help:
> 
>   Perl5 => Intermediate Representation (C or C++ or Obj-C) => Perl6
> 
> The part I want to emphasize is that Perl6 should not be written in a
> low-level language.  Chip's Topaz idea was to use C++ instead of C. 
> Maybe C++ is still too low-level.  I propose that perl6 be written
> exclusively in perl5.


Writing it in perl5 doesn't make much sense to me. If it's written in perl,
it should be written in perl6. That of course gives you a bootstrap
problem, but that has succesfully been solved for other compilers too.



Abigail

• Re: Working Group Proposal -Reply by J Pedro Fonseca
• Re: Working Group Proposal -Reply by Piers Cawley