> > > At 07:49 AM 12/6/00 -0800, Daniel Chetlin wrote:
> > > >Simply deciding that `eval STRING' is "unimplemented" on these
> > > >theoretical ports and binary compiles is the best idea I've heard yet,
> > > >but we should remember that `require' is built on `eval STRING'.
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 08:30:06PM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> > I see no reason to ghettoize powerful non-C-based systems just because we
Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Powerful? Java? Excuse me, I have must have picked the wrong reality.
I certainly understand the average Perl hacker's distaste for Java, and I
don't blame you for it. Comparing Perl to the Java language itself isn't
fair to Perl nor Java, and I agree Perl is much better, anyway.
However, the JVM is a powerful environment for generalized bytecode and for
allowing bytecode of different languages to communicate.
Also, it is gaining some support in embedded circles. Motorola is releasing
a unit that will have a JVM in the device. PocketLinux, a new product, is
completely JVM-based.
Perl should be able to run in these environments. Regardless of our
personal feelings about Java, we should not refuse to support JVM-based
architectures. This would be like saying: "We won't support Microsoft,
because many Perl hackers don't like it."
> > Soon, there will likely be JVM systems that can run eval($string) quickly
> > enough, but not if it is written in C (as there is no C->JVM compiler).
> I have seen a real Java implementation by Sun. It was written in C.
Yes, when you are running on a canonical computer, there will be little
reason to run Perl on a JVM. However, IMO, we should not ignore the
possibility of:
* embedded devices based around the JVM or other virtual machine
architectures (like C#, or IBM's virtual machine project).
* the usefulness of using Java interfaces for an integrated scripting
environment for many languages (for example, Kawa).
* the desire for people to reimplement parts of perl6 in a language of
their choice for some reason we haven't thought of yet!
Why should we center our entire design around C? Sure, the canonical perl6
implementation will be in C, but do we really want to be as sharply tied to
the C implementation of perl6 as we are tied to the C implementation of
perl5?
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
