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. If
translating perl to C efficiently were easy, we wouldn't need to be doing
perl 6, I think...
>There is discussion of perl as a prototyping language, that is, get it
>working in perl and then port it to your faster language, as a
>methodology. Why don't we use this methodology?
Because it's far too much work, and too many of the details are different
in perl and C (or whatever). A lot of the weird things we'll need to do in
a perl implementation won't need to be done in C, and vice versa.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
