At 11:10 PM -0400 8/12/02, Melvin Smith wrote:
>At 06:56 PM 8/12/2002 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>>Here's a more interesting question: which parts of Parrot are enshrined,
>>and which are prototypes, ready to be thrown away? For instance, I'd
>>say much of languages/* is all proof-of-concept prototype stuff; imcc
>>may not be. The assembler I'd call a prototype. The regex engine? The
>>GC? ...
>
>On that topic, given that the reference assembler is too slow for on-the-fly
>assembly, I already decided that imcc should get its own C based
>assembler. Now that the C (XS) interface is gone, it means we will be
>duplicating code. I'm not saying the Perl based assembler is a BAD thing,
>but I think time spent "tuning" the reference assembler is wasted
>when it could
>be spent writing a really fast one in C.
A fast C assembler's fine, or a fast Parrot one based on what
Daniel's got in already. Don't care either way--it'll all be linked
together in one big mass of parrot.so at some point anyway...
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
