On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:48 AM, chromatic <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday 31 January 2011 at 08:32, Christoph wrote: > >> I don't agree with >> the philosophy that choosing a non-modular design to facilitate vendor- >> lockin is ok as long as it's the 'good guys' who do it; > > No one is seriously suggesting Parrot adopt a deliberate strategy to *thwart* > cross-VM portability. > > Some of us question the cost and value of deliberately expanding Parrot's > scope to *promote* cross-VM portability.
Speaking of strawmen, I'm sorry, who is suggesting that, exactly? I see a roadmap from NQP folks for NQP to support that, not that we change parrot to provide that. > Please, everyone, do keep this important distinction in mind. > > -- c > _______________________________________________ > http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev > -- Will "Coke" Coleda _______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
