> On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
> > And, it will make the barrier for entry for new internals hacker lower.
Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Really? Do you honestly believe there are more Java programmers than C
> programmers? Particularily in the Perl development community!
Now, I would agree that there are more C hackers about. However, many
people are graduating college with computer science degrees having worked
mostly in Java and very little in C. In 6 years or so, we may find that
there are more Java hackers than C hackers about. But, I agree this alone
isn't a reason to pick Java.
> Let's move on - C is our only real option.
I already knew that "writing the canonical Perl6 implementation in Java was
likely a lost cause. ;) However, I hope we won't confuse this issue with the
one of making it possible to port Perl to non-C environments. Such
environments do exist, and they do matter, IMO.
I believe strongly that we need to make sure the design does not become so C
specific so as to leave us where perl5 has left us: "No C compiler on your
platform? Sorry!".
> [C is] portable enough (proven by perl5),
I don't know if that is proven. We still lack a port to the JVM, while our
"sister languages" like Python, Scheme, Tcl, Eiffel and the like all have
JVM ports.
And, if one is in the Microsoft world, the C# architecture will likely be
important.
We need to make sure the design of Perl makes it easier to port Perl to
architectures like this whose native tongue isn't C.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
