At 08:19 PM 9/11/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 02:39:14PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 01:23 PM 9/11/00 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
> > >Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >
> > > > If anyone's got any arguments in a particular direction, now would
> be the
> > > > time. Once we're done wrangling, we'll start in on the features we
> need to
> > > > write into the PIL translator, and get implementation of that started.
> > >
> > >I believe we should create a working reference implementation in
> perl5, which
> > >can then be optimized into any implementation language as a porting
> problem.
> >
> > There is far too much of an impedance mismatch between perl and anything I
> > know of that compiles for perl to be a useful implementation language.
>
>I started planning a language to do with stack-based virtual machines what C
>does with register-based real machines, but I have no idea where to stop
>before achieving Perl. In Perl 5 internals, the same sorts of operations come
>up again and again, enough to make me think we can build a language around
>one.
Are you thinking of something along the lines of FORTH or PostScript? Or
something else?
>Should I draft some kind of spec for this or am I, as usual, talking out
>of my backside?
Depends, I suppose. Are you thinking of using it to implement perl 6? If
so, the three big questions would be:
1) How fast is the C (or whatever) code it emits likely to be?
2) Would having to learn a completely new language be more of a hassle than
it's worth?
3) Would it easily tie into the existing C stdlib?
I've a nagging feeling that #2 would be the killer here, but if you want to
go ahead I'll certainly wait until I see the results.
>`After all, we're not all freaky perverts' - Thorfinn
Yes, but that's half the fun... :-P
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
