On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 12:37:05 -0800, chromatic wrote: > On Tuesday 07 February 2006 23:55, Yuval Kogman wrote: > > > Does this imply that we should think up this process? > > Go ahead.
We'll start at the Israel hackathon, with a little preamble. > The last time someone tried to set forth a complete specification in a > particular order was the Perl 6 documentation project. That didn't work > then. I doubt it'll work now, either... Here is my reply on #perl6 to your discussion on Perl 6: My reply: http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/perl6?date=2006-02-09,Thu&sel=11 Your discussion: http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/perl6?date=2006-02-08,Wed&sel=348#l558 > I have doubts that specifying a complete compiler and toolchain > without at least some trial and error will work, but I could be wrong. Trial and error is always required, and a very good tool for innovation in the hands of the community. I don't think Big Bang design is ever good, but I also believe a rough plan with easy to understand milestones (as opposed to a daunting cliff) are required, even if not formal or even on paper. Also, I am trying to formulate a plan that will help us write most of the parts in Perl 6, *NOT* Haskell, because I, like you, despite my love for Haskell, think it's just too inaccessible. What I'd like is to optimize the modularization such that Pugs serves as a bootstrap parser/interpreter/compiler - a good solid tool to help us write: The Perl 6 standard library in Perl 6 (with stubs for IO, system calls, and other things that cannot be defined in a "pure" language) The Perl 6 compiler toolchain in Perl 6 (the linker, compiler, emitters, and an interpreter, too). And then eventually refactor the current state of pugs into a haskell runtime, and and possibly a historical parser/compiler that we can use to compare things to. The way things are headed now, we are just shy of being able to write good tools in Perl 6 using pugs - it's too slow, the object model is not finalized, the grammar is not extensible, etc etc. These are many things that are mentioned in the synopses but not described in enough detail, and if we want the other parts to be in Perl 6 we need these done in haskell first, and then rewritten. If we get them later, we'll have to write the other parts in haskell too. > Maybe the right place to start is to gather a list of all of the questions > you > need to have answered and all of the features people want, and then try to > unify them into a Perl 6-ish whole. Yes, that's an excellent start, and in fact, I think this is what Audrey plans on starting with at the prehackathon, when she arrives in Israel and works with Gaal. Unfortunately for myself, I will be unable to follow this discussion as of ~14:00 GMT, today (Feb 9th) as I'm going to visit my grand parents in Austria, and try not to die while snowboarding. -- () Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0xEBD27418 perl hacker & /\ kung foo master: /me tips over a cow: neeyah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Description: PGP signature