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
I'd like to have a crack at rephrasing this, since everyone but
stevan seems to be getting the wrong impression.
Perl 6 has some hard to answer questions. The questions the
community has answered so far are:
* How the VM will work/look
* What the syntax/feature requirements are
Yuval Kogman wrote:
What I do think is that there is something in the middle of these
two big questions, and they are:
* How will the Perl 6 compiler be designed (parts, etc)
That... was what Pugs Apocrypha was meant to contain, with PA02 being a
design overview, and PA03 onward
On Tuesday 07 February 2006 23:55, Yuval Kogman wrote:
Does this imply that we should think up this process?
Go ahead.
If I propose a concrete plan for the implementation of Perl 6 in a
layered fashion it will probably be even more overlooked.
I have no authority, and this is not something
I should note, as integral said, that this direction is generally
being taken by pugs, now that PIR targetting is being worked out
(finally) - i just think it needs to be more explicit and in tune
with the @Larry.
Also, the way pugs is refactoring implies nothing on refactoring and
layering Perl
On Tuesday 07 February 2006 13:28, Yuval Kogman wrote:
Right now the biggest problem in Perl 6 land is project management.
I disagree, but even if it were true, I don't think the solution is to add
more project management and design to partition the process into even more
subprojects of
On Feb 7, 2006, at 13:28, Yuval Kogman wrote:
Apologies if this is insulting to anyone, but personally I think
that Perl 6 (pugs, parrot, everything) is losing too much momentum
lately. I think we need to seriously rethink some of the
implementation plan.
I understand your frustration. I even
On Tuesday 07 February 2006 14:17, Yuval Kogman wrote:
If we have more steps and clearer milestones for whatever is between
parrot and the syntax/feature level design implementation will be
easier.
Parrot has had such milestones for well over a year.
De-facto we have people running PIL on
On 2/7/06, Allison Randal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 7, 2006, at 13:28, Yuval Kogman wrote:
Apologies if this is insulting to anyone, but personally I think
that Perl 6 (pugs, parrot, everything) is losing too much momentum
lately. I think we need to seriously rethink some of the
On Feb 7, 2006, at 5:33 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
Parrot, on the other hand, has noticeably gained momentum the past
6 months or so. AFAICT, this is largely due to the fact that we're
close enough to finished that we can see the light at the end of
the tunnel, and because Pugs reminded us
On Feb 7, 2006, at 6:51 PM, David K Storrs wrote:
I'd say that qualifies as light at the end of the tunnel indeed!
Forgot to say...all of this was was predicated on the idea that the
code can't really be written until the spec is done. Once the spec
is complete (even if not totally
On 2/7/06, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 07 February 2006 14:17, Yuval Kogman wrote:
De-facto we have people running PIL on javascript.
It works more than parrot does.
No, it works *differently* from Parrot, just as an LR parser works differently
from an LR parser.
Don't
On Tuesday 07 February 2006 15:56, Stevan Little wrote:
The Pugs project and the Parrot project have had very different goals
actually (at least Pugs did from the early days). Pugs aimed to be
able to evaluate Perl 6 code, as a way of testing the language
features and design. It did not
On 2/8/06, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Audrey is willing, I think a correct new direction for pugs is to
try and separate the parts even more - the prelude is a mess right
now, many of it's part are duplicated across the backends, the
standard library that is mashed into the
On Feb 7, 2006, at 15:31, Stevan Little wrote:
Now I am not as involved in Parrot as I am in Pugs so I might be way
off base here, but from my point of view Parrot still has a long way
to go before it runs Perl 6 code. Part of that is because the bridge
between PIR/PMCs and Perl 6 just does not
On 2/7/06, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 07 February 2006 15:56, Stevan Little wrote:
The Pugs project and the Parrot project have had very different goals
actually (at least Pugs did from the early days). Pugs aimed to be
able to evaluate Perl 6 code, as a way of testing
On 2/7/06, Allison Randal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 7, 2006, at 15:31, Stevan Little wrote:
Now I am not as involved in Parrot as I am in Pugs so I might be way
off base here, but from my point of view Parrot still has a long way
to go before it runs Perl 6 code. Part of that is
On Feb 7, 2006, at 19:21, Stevan Little wrote:
Perl 6 will get implemented.
Oh, of that I have no doubt. Never did, and neither does Yuval (if I
may speak for him while he is asleep :). But all that we are trying to
do here is shake out some cobwebs, a little spring cleaning if you
will.
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:59:35 +0800, Audrey Tang wrote:
On 2/8/06, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Audrey is willing, I think a correct new direction for pugs is to
try and separate the parts even more - the prelude is a mess right
now, many of it's part are duplicated across
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 18:51:03 -0500, David K Storrs wrote:
So, to bring it down to brass tacks: there are 5 big chunks (S15, S16, S18,
S21, S23) that remain to be be written, a 6th (S08) that needs to be written
but will
probably be fairly short, and 5 (S28, S30-33) that need to be
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 23:11:32 -0800, Allison Randal wrote:
On Feb 7, 2006, at 19:21, Stevan Little wrote:
Perl 6 will get implemented.
Oh, of that I have no doubt. Never did, and neither does Yuval (if I
may speak for him while he is asleep :). But all that we are trying to
do here is
21 matches
Mail list logo
