On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 12:45:14PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: > Okay, we've now got minimal: > > *) Parrot assembly > *) Perl > *) Python > *) JVM > *) Scheme > *) Jako > *) Ruby? (Do we? I can't remember for sure) > > support for Parrot. This is a cool thing, but it brings up the questions: > > 1) Do we put them all in the parrot CVS tree
Yes, most definitely yes. > 2) Do we require them to meet the same levels of quality as the core > interpreter? Sort of. Those little languages represent the closest thing to a practical application we have for Parrot at the moment. More importantly, you don't have to be an assembly programmer to use them. As each new feature of Parrot is added, the little languages quickly make use of them. If they're widely distributed (ie. with Parrot) people can quickly make use of the little languages, seeing just how much they can get away with in such a small space. So Parrot and the interpreters will grow in parallel. This means more people beating on Parrot sooner and with more and more varied sticks. However, the author(s) of each individual interpreter should be responsible for their own language. Basically, a mini-pumpinking. This means they *do* have to stand up to the same standards as Parrot because, essentially, they're acting as very practical test cases. If the mini-Scheme interpreter works on Linux but not on VMS, then it's likely exposed a bug inside Parrot. Whether or not a release should be held up because a given language is broken is up to Simon. So yes, put them in the default Parrot tree. Later on when they've matured they can branch off into seperate projects and go their own way. -- Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ Perl6 Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalitee Is Job One Nature is pissed. http://www.unamerican.com/
