At 11:52 AM 2/8/2001 +0000, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 11:21:17AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > I'm not sure this is all necessary. Wouldn't we be reasonably better
> off if
> > we instead just shipped off bytecode compiled versions of the scripts?
>
>Sure, except...
> 1) You lose your readable source code (discussions of B::Deparse as
> a viable alternative > /dev/null)
Not unless you strip the bytecode. I want to optionally package the source
in the bytecode, since otherwise you can't do some optimizations after the
fact on the generated bytecode stream.
> 2) You have to make provisions to distribute your documentation
> seperately.
Presumably you'd package it up in the tar or zip archive containing the
fully-compiled program.
> 3) It makes it harder to bundle non-Perl things, like configuration
> files, images, sound files, etc... If you want to send those along
> with the bytecode you windup needing a par-style utility anyway.
Once again, you can package it up in the tar or zip archive that you're
distributing the program in.
> 4) What Brenden said
Some of what Brenden said isn't entirely applicable, though much of it is.
> 5) Do YOU have a stable bytecode compiler?? I don't.
For perl 6? No. Not yet.
>Perhaps it wasn't clear, I don't mean to have par as part of 6.0, I
>mean to have it out, like, maybe next month if I decide to work on it.
I assumed that since you were discussing this on a perl 6 mailing list, you
were talking about doing this with perl 6.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
