"Bradley M. Kuhn" wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> >
> > > And, it will make the barrier for entry for new internals hacker lower.
>
> Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Really? Do you honestly believe there are more Java programmers than C
> > programmers? P
At 10:44 AM 12/8/00 -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
>On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> > I already knew that "writing the canonical Perl6 implementation in Java was
> > likely a lost cause. ;) However, I hope we won't confuse this issue
> with the
> > one of making it possible to port Perl to
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Now, I would agree that there are more C hackers about. However, many
> people are graduating college with computer science degrees having worked
> mostly in Java and very little in C. In 6 years or so, we may find that
> there are more Java hackers
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 01:17:01PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> We seem to be arguing about the best method for making it *im*possible
> to use anything but the initially-chosen-implementation language to
> implement perl. This feels like a bad thing.
I don't see that; I see that we're all agre
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 10:36:48AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 10:11:11PM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> > I believe strongly that we need to make sure the design does not become so C
> > specific so as to leave us where perl5 has left us: "No C compiler on your
> > platf
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 10:11:11PM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> I believe strongly that we need to make sure the design does not become so C
> specific so as to leave us where perl5 has left us: "No C compiler on your
> platform? Sorry!".
Huh? There are platforms have Java VMs but not C compi
