On Thursday 24 May 2007 05:34:46 Josh Wilmes wrote: > At 20:07 on 05/23/2007 PDT, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 10:37:06PM -0400, Josh Wilmes wrote: > > > Is it necessary (or even fair) to tie compiler components to parrot? > > I really don't know how to answer this question. > > The compiler tools target Parrot, so that it will be easier for people > > (including us) to write languages that run on Parrot. > I understand. I'm just saying that *if* perl 6 were being written to > target an existing VM, any brilliant compiler tools could be written to > target it as well. It's not parrot that makes these possible. Of course, but "Turing equivalence" is a really bad reason to do something that no one involved has any interest in doing. I assume that the people working on building compiler tools in Parrot have more interest in getting them working with Parrot than with any other VMs. Likewise I assume that any people who might have an interest in getting them working with VMs have other things to do, so that's why we have a few of the former and none of the latter. I mean, people aren't using Parrot right now much. I have little interest in doing things that make it less likely for them to use Parrot. -- c
