This is because Parrot is implemented in C,
while developing a large program such as this could well
have been done in C++. This is for three reasons:
1. C is available everywhere
2. there is a large pool of C programmers
3. other languages are not fast enough
I think you've missed the most important reason as to why any project
would be implemented in C and not C++. C++ is still not as portable
between implementations as C (but it's gotten a lot better). I'm sure
Chip has some strong feelings on this point. ;)
3 For instance, C is not suitable for creating an object oriented
design.
I partially disagree with that. As examples: The first C++ 'compliers'
emitted C code, Linux kernel Kobjects, and Glib objects. Sure
polymorphism is hard in C (by definition, an OO language supports
polymorphism) but many simpler OO techniques are easily accessible in
C.
Intensive CPU users; these users care most about
performance, and not about Parrot internals or space
usage. Compatibility is important, as these users are
likely to use a particular (favorite) feature set.
I disagree with that too. Most HPC users don't really care about
compatibility (there are exceptions, like users that are dependent on
Fujitsu's compiler extensions so Fujitsu continues to it's niche
compiler series). An example of this is that the Itanic manages to sell
into this market space.
Cheers,
-J
--
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 10:40:54AM -0700, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Some weeks ago, I announced my plans for writing a paper on the
> archtecture of Parrot. In the mean time, I made a start, and more or
> less defined the structure of the article. It's an initial draft, so
> nothing definite yet. Also, as it's a really early draft, not much too
> read. However, it gives an overview of the paper as I 'm planning it,
> and if you're interested, you can find it at:
>
> http://members.home.nl/joeijoei/parrot/paper.pdf
>
> (next 'releases' will be more complete, and less cluttered with 'notes
> to self')
>
> If you read it, and you think: what is he talking about, please give me
> an email and I can change things. As it is kinda hard to describe
> something that (1) isn't finished (in other words, I don't know exactly
> *what* the design is), and (2) didn't design myself, I may draw wrong
> conclusions, or give false information. I hope to write something that
> may be of use, also in the future.
>
> Thanks for your attention,
> klaas-jan
pgpHXmZFmv6gx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
