Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 03:26:36PM -0500, Jeff Horwitz wrote:
[snipped long response]
and let's not forget bytecode compatibility with all the non-perl
languages that will hopefully target parrot.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 03:49:54PM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 14:58, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Good answer, and other than adding a bit about cross-language usage I'd
stop there (memory issues are important but complex, and you've already
made your point with this brief answer).
Patches welcome, as I'm not sure of the best way to phrase the cross
language stuff to follow on smoothly.
One possibility is attached.
--
Matt
Matthew Zimmerman
Interdisciplinary Biophysics, University of Virginia
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~mdz4c/
--- FAQ.txt.orig 2005-03-31 12:13:37.895141760 -0500
+++ FAQ.txt 2005-03-31 12:37:54.251741904 -0500
@@ -14,6 +14,13 @@
impossible on small systems. So by going with Pugs and Haskell we'd be
sacrificing portability.
+As well, other languages apart from Perl 6 are being targeted to Parrot.
+Significant parts of Python, TCL, Perl 5, and Basic have already been
+implemented and others are on the way. Running multiple languages on the
+same Parrot engine allows them to be cross-language compatible-- in other
+words, one targeted language could directly invoke the methods of another
+at the bytecode level.
+
Finally there is a reason the Parrot design keeps talking about running
bytecode direct from disk rather than relying on doing compiling (from Perl or
with a JIT) in memory. It's all very well doing such operations when running
