On Friday 23 June 2006 00:04, Swaroop C H wrote: > So, as of now, you envision svn:/pugs/misc/pX/Common/Pugs-Compiler-Perl6 to > be the "main" engine for Perl 6 ?
I believe Audrey's point was that it is the most complete implementation right now. > If this is the case, is the purpose of the other backend engines simply > -Ofun or more than that? :-) They're all at various stages of incompleteness. Some people believe that specifying a common minimal subset of Perl 6 (or an intermediate language which can represent Perl 6) will allow nearly simultaneous bootstrapping on multiple backends. > Where does Parrot fit in all of this? I am speaking for myself, not Audrey (or anyone else) here. I believe that it will be the most complete and most performant backend in the near and medium future. > Makes sense. It's good to have different engines suitable for different > purposes ... Yes and no. Having multiple incomplete and incompatible implementations is fairly uninteresting. (Multiple complete and incompatible implementations isn't much better; try writing a complex CL program on one platform and deploying it to another sometime.) -- c
