On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 10:23:55PM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> > > > At 07:49 AM 12/6/00 -0800, Daniel Chetlin wrote:
> > > > >Simply deciding that `eval STRING' is "unimplemented" on these
> > > > >theoretical ports and binary compiles is the best idea I've heard yet,
> > > > >but we should remember that `require' is built on `eval STRING'.
>
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 08:30:06PM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> > > I see no reason to ghettoize powerful non-C-based systems just because we
>
> Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Powerful? Java? Excuse me, I have must have picked the wrong reality.
>
> I certainly understand the average Perl hacker's distaste for Java, and I
I hope you don't think me as a Perl hacker, I'm a Perl internals
hacker... no, I'm serious. For good or bad, I don't actually much
program in Perl, I don't have the time. In my day job I nowadays do
C, Java, JNI.
> don't blame you for it. Comparing Perl to the Java language itself isn't
> fair to Perl nor Java, and I agree Perl is much better, anyway.
>
> However, the JVM is a powerful environment for generalized bytecode and for
> allowing bytecode of different languages to communicate.
Words, words, words. I still haven't seen a platform where Java runs
anywhere near native code, I still haven't seen Java being as portable
a Perl scripts.
> Also, it is gaining some support in embedded circles. Motorola is releasing
> a unit that will have a JVM in the device. PocketLinux, a new product, is
> completely JVM-based.
>
> Perl should be able to run in these environments. Regardless of our
> personal feelings about Java, we should not refuse to support JVM-based
> architectures. This would be like saying: "We won't support Microsoft,
> because many Perl hackers don't like it."
I didn't say that we shouldn't be friendly to JVM, PyVM, .NET, or
whatever. It was just the mere thought of implementing Perl in Java
that scared my out of my wits and I proceeded hastily to shoot the bad
thought down before it grows, like a cancer...
> Why should we center our entire design around C? Sure, the canonical perl6
Because that's what we got. Because that's what we have in the maximal
number of platforms. Because that's what works.
> implementation will be in C, but do we really want to be as sharply tied to
> the C implementation of perl6 as we are tied to the C implementation of
> perl5?
If we can't do it in C, we can't do in Java.
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
