Howdy, Sorry that I don't have time to give all the details, but here are some:
1) MoarVM is designed to be a virtual machine EXCLUSIVELY designed for NQP 2) Parrot will never be built on top of MoarVM 3) Parrot has amazing threads 4) NQP/Rakudo developers don't yet understand how to use Parrot threads effectively (because we have horrible docs) 5) The future of Parrot has nothing to do with Rakudo Perl 6 Benabik, we are in agreement about everything, but there is so much FUD, smoke and mirrors that it is hard to tell. Duke On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Brian Gernhardt <be...@silverinsanity.com> wrote: > > On Jun 21, 2013, at 1:07 PM, "Jonathan \"Duke\" Leto" <jonat...@leto.net> > wrote: > >> As soon as Rakudo Perl 6 works on MoarVM (the spiritual successor of >> the m0 branch in parrot.git) [0], anything that Rakudo depends on that >> is not deemed necessary by Parrot core developers will be removed. > > "Not deemed necessary"? Necessary to what? There are plenty of things in > Parrot not really being used that stripping out the bits that are seems > somewhat counter-productive. > > I would agree Parrot could use change. Strip things down, don't be afraid to > break things. > > If I had the time, I'd make a branch killing PIR and replacing it with a dumb > assembly language and a bytecode generator a la ASM. But I'd do that in > parallel with Winxed and NQP branches that taught them the new system. > Building a system that nothing uses is interesting only from an academic > standpoint (and I say that as an academic ;-). > > But I'd also want to do things like try to kill PMCs and rebuild them as > 6model objects. Pull _more_ from NQP, not strip things out from under it. > It's by far the most active thing on Parrot, and honestly I think points out > a lot of the utility of the system. The fact that the system is extensible > enough to build something completely different is interesting. > > Heck, if MoarVM is a successor to M0, can we build Parrot on top of it? I > was never quite sure what would happen after an M0 interpreter was running, > but maybe it would be interesting to try. > > > > Really, I guess my point is "we're removing things we don't need even if > you're using them" is a very combative statement. Especially when it's not > clear what we actually need. I'd say: > > 1) Don't be afraid to break things > 2) Build interesting things > > but also > > 3) Talk about building first, instead of breaking first > 4) Fix things we broke if we can > > > ~~ benabik > -- Jonathan "Duke" Leto <jonat...@leto.net> Leto Labs LLC http://letolabs.com 209.691.DUKE http://duke.leto.net @dukeleto _______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
