On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 10:23:55PM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> However, the JVM is a powerful environment for generalized bytecode and for
> allowing bytecode of different languages to communicate.
So's Microsoft vaporware ".NET platform". And the second version
of that bytecoded runtime will be even more so. And the third
version of that bytecoded runtime even *more* so, almost to the point
of being useable.
> Perl should be able to run in these environments.
Yes. That's an argument for being [A-Z]VM friendly, not [A-Z]VM centric.
> Why should we center our entire design around C?
Because Perl is a write-once-run-anywhere platform, and C is the only
viable way of maintaining Perl support on all of the platforms currently
supported.
Because most (all?) of the people interested in implementing Perl6 are
extremely fluent in C.
Because C doesn't have Java's unnecessary complexities which
hindering large-scale projects.
Because the Python folks didn't have a problem basing JPython off of CPython.
Because it's looking like a Perl6 program will parse Perl6 code,
forcing any Java-, Smalltalk-, Python-, C++-, or INTERCAL-based
reimplementations of the Perl runtime to reimplement the just
runtime ops and support as appropriate, not the nasty parsing bits.
Because it's a Simple Matter Of Programming to reimplement a
C program as a Java program, given enough tuits.
Now, can we put this JVM thread to bed? Please?
Z.
