At 05:37 PM 8/17/00 -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>I don't think Microsoft's so-called ".NET Implementation Language" (I love
>how they appropriate words that are commonly used for other things; which as
>Simon noted makes searching hard anyway :) is really a "key" target for
>Perl6. For that matter, neither is the JVM.
>
>I *think* that the consensus is that we should make it easy for people who
>want to port to the JVM, or the so-called ".NET Implementation Language".
>As the JVM porter, I'd like my life easy, but I don't expect perl6 to hand
>me a JVM implementation---I just want to right components and interfaces so
>it is not as hard as a job as it is for perl5.
I'll sorta-kinda disagree.
While the JVM and .NET.Thingie shouldn't be *the* dead-on target for output
bytecode, their limitations should be kept in mind to some extent. If, for
example, the bytecode *required* the use of pointers (no, don't ask me how,
this is a contrived example... :) then that'd make a JVM port rather more
tricky.
Having a solid and correct reference doc for the output bytecode is
probably the single most helpful thing we can do for folks writing things
that munch the bytecode.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
