Josh Wilmes wrote:
At 19:05 on 05/23/2007 PDT, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- better compiler tools than lex and yacc.
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
By way of introduction, we quickly hit the law of diminishing returns
when we spend a lot of time justifying the existence of Parrot.
Especially when we could be spending that time finishing off Parrot. At
the end of the day, no amount of talking will convince the skeptics. A
completed virtual
Josh Wilmes schrieb:
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 t
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 answe
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:
>
> > At 19:05 on 05/23/2007 PDT, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > - better compiler tools than lex and yacc.
>
> > Is it necessary (or even fair) to tie
At 19:05 on 05/23/2007 PDT, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It sounds like you are saying that languages are free to implement
> > their own semantics using their own code, and that they can choose not
> > to interoperate with predefined Parrot types or types from other
> > languages when
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 10:37:06PM -0400, Josh Wilmes wrote:
> At 19:05 on 05/23/2007 PDT, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - better compiler tools than lex and yacc.
> Is it necessary (or even fair) to tie compiler components to parrot?
I really don't know how to answer this question
On May 23, 2007, at 8:06 PM, Will Coleda wrote:
On May 23, 2007, at 1:58 AM, Joshua Isom wrote:
I confess to not grasping the point you claim is simple. As you
understand it, what is there about a register based machine, as
opposed to a stack based machine, that specifically improves the
perf
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 18:06:38 Will Coleda wrote:
> I confess to not grasping the point you claim is simple. As you
> understand it, what is there about a register based machine, as
> opposed to a stack based machine, that specifically improves the
> performance of operating on dynamically typ
A reply from the anonymous colleague.
I pass it along as presented to me, unaltered except for this prelude.
Note that while these are not *my* questions, I find both the
original questions and the followups compelling and in need of
answering.
I hope that we can get some of the design tea
On May 21, 2007, at 5:56 PM, Will Coleda wrote:
I was talking to a colleague (who wishes to remain anonymous), and
s/he had a list of questions about the state of parrot that I think
should end up in the FAQ or elsewhere in the repo. I wanted to post
them here to get some discussion - I don't
I was talking to a colleague (who wishes to remain anonymous), and s/
he had a list of questions about the state of parrot that I think
should end up in the FAQ or elsewhere in the repo. I wanted to post
them here to get some discussion - I don't have answers to many of
these questions mysel
12 matches
Mail list logo
