Home > Archive > PERL Miscellaneous > June 2007 > why we need perl6 if we have parrort?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
why we need perl6 if we have parrort?
|
|
|
| If every dynamically languages (such as Perl6 and Python...)
will convert to PIR and automatically converted inside Parrot to
PBC (Parrot Bytecode).
1.Why we need perl6 ? We can learn how to coding in PIR direct.
2.Why not convert perl5 to PIR (convert to Parrot bytecode)?
| |
| brian d foy 2007-06-22, 7:04 pm |
| In article <f5gq36$rme$1@netnews.hinet.net>, sonet
<sonet.all@msa.hinet.net> wrote:
> If every dynamically languages (such as Perl6 and Python...)
> will convert to PIR and automatically converted inside Parrot to
> PBC (Parrot Bytecode).
>
> 1.Why we need perl6 ? We can learn how to coding in PIR direct.
For the same reason we have Java instead of programming in Java
bytecode: higher level languages condense higher level concepts into
keywords that represent a lot of behind-the-scenese lower-level code.
> 2.Why not convert perl5 to PIR (convert to Parrot bytecode)?
Some people were working on that with PONIE (Perl On New Interpreter
Image), but those are also the same people doing Perl 6 / parrot
things.
There's a lot more to Perl 6 than just using parrot for its interpreter.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Clenna Lumina 2007-06-22, 7:04 pm |
| brian d foy wrote:
> In article <f5gq36$rme$1@netnews.hinet.net>, sonet
> <sonet.all@msa.hinet.net> wrote:
>
>
> For the same reason we have Java instead of programming in Java
> bytecode: higher level languages condense higher level concepts into
> keywords that represent a lot of behind-the-scenese lower-level code.
>
>
>
> Some people were working on that with PONIE (Perl On New Interpreter
> Image), but those are also the same people doing Perl 6 / parrot
> things.
>
> There's a lot more to Perl 6 than just using parrot for its
> interpreter.
Why did they go with parrot instead of just augmenting the existing Perl
interpreter. Using Parrot (or any 3rd party interpreter) just kinda maks
it feel less like Perl in a way; not as "pure" as Perl5 and ealier :)
| |
| Michele Dondi 2007-06-22, 7:04 pm |
| On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:32:22 +0800, "sonet" <sonet.all@msa.hinet.net>
wrote:
>1.Why we need perl6 ? We can learn how to coding in PIR direct.
Why we need C? We can learn how to coding in assembler direct.
>2.Why not convert perl5 to PIR (convert to Parrot bytecode)?
5.12
Michele
--
{$_=pack'B8'x25,unpack'A8'x32,$a^=sub{po
p^pop}->(map substr
(($a||=join'',map--$|x$_,(unpack'w',unpack'u','G^<R<Y]*YB='
..'KYU;*EVH[.FHF2W+#"\Z*5TI/ER<Z`S(G.DZZ9OX0Z')=~/./g)x2,$_,
256),7,249);s/[^\w,]/ /g;$ \=/^J/?$/:"\r";print,redo}#JAPH,
| |
| Michele Dondi 2007-06-22, 7:04 pm |
| On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:41:03 -0700, "Clenna Lumina"
<savagebeaste@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Why did they go with parrot instead of just augmenting the existing Perl
>interpreter. Using Parrot (or any 3rd party interpreter) just kinda maks
Because the existing Perl interpreter has already been augmented to a
point that the language proper is defined by the implementation, and
hacking the latter is far from being a trivial task.
>it feel less like Perl in a way; not as "pure" as Perl5 and ealier :)
Because Perl 5 already runs on a bytecode, but with shortcomings.
Parrot aims at clearly separating the two levels...
Michele
--
{$_=pack'B8'x25,unpack'A8'x32,$a^=sub{po
p^pop}->(map substr
(($a||=join'',map--$|x$_,(unpack'w',unpack'u','G^<R<Y]*YB='
..'KYU;*EVH[.FHF2W+#"\Z*5TI/ER<Z`S(G.DZZ9OX0Z')=~/./g)x2,$_,
256),7,249);s/[^\w,]/ /g;$ \=/^J/?$/:"\r";print,redo}#JAPH,
| |
| Sherm Pendley 2007-06-22, 7:04 pm |
| "Clenna Lumina" <savagebeaste@yahoo.com> writes:
> Why did they go with parrot instead of just augmenting the existing Perl
> interpreter.
Because the existing code base is huge and brittle - as a result of twenty-
odd years since Perl 1 of "just augmenting" it. There was a very real need
to do a major ground-up rewrite.
> Using Parrot (or any 3rd party interpreter) just kinda maks
> it feel less like Perl in a way; not as "pure" as Perl5 and ealier :)
Parrot isn't a 3rd-party interpreter.
sherm--
| |
| Sherm Pendley 2007-06-22, 7:04 pm |
| Michele Dondi <bik.mido@tiscalinet.it> writes:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:32:22 +0800, "sonet" <sonet.all@msa.hinet.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> Why we need C? We can learn how to coding in assembler direct.
Why do we need assembler? We can learn how to coding by flipping toggle
switches on an operator console.
sherm--
| |
| Uri Guttman 2007-06-22, 7:04 pm |
| >>>>> "SP" == Sherm Pendley <spamtrap@dot-app.org> writes:
SP> "Clenna Lumina" <savagebeaste@yahoo.com> writes:[color=darkred]
SP> Because the existing code base is huge and brittle - as a result
SP> of twenty- odd years since Perl 1 of "just augmenting" it. There
SP> was a very real need to do a major ground-up rewrite.
actually perl5 was a complete rewrite by larry and didn't share any
source code with perl4.
uri
--
Uri Guttman ------ uri@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.stemsystems.com
--Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding-
Search or Offer Perl Jobs ---------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org
| |
| Tad McClellan 2007-06-22, 10:04 pm |
| Sherm Pendley <spamtrap@dot-app.org> wrote:
> Michele Dondi <bik.mido@tiscalinet.it> writes:
>
>
> Why do we need assembler? We can learn how to coding by flipping toggle
> switches on an operator console.
Why do we need switches? We can learn how to coding by whistling
into a modem.
--
Tad McClellan
email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.noitatibaher\100cmdat/"
| |
| Sherm Pendley 2007-06-22, 10:04 pm |
| Uri Guttman <uri@stemsystems.com> writes:
>
> SP> "Clenna Lumina" <savagebeaste@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> SP> Because the existing code base is huge and brittle - as a result
> SP> of twenty- odd years since Perl 1 of "just augmenting" it. There
> SP> was a very real need to do a major ground-up rewrite.
>
> actually perl5 was a complete rewrite by larry and didn't share any
> source code with perl4.
Sorry, my bad - I was under the impression for some reason that quite a lot
of code was carried over. Make that fifteen-odd years then. That's still
quite a bit of cruft anyway. :-)
sherm--
| |
|
|
| Michele Dondi 2007-06-23, 10:09 pm |
| On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:38:22 -0400, Sherm Pendley
<spamtrap@dot-app.org> wrote:
>
>Why do we need assembler? We can learn how to coding by flipping toggle
>switches on an operator console.
Nope. I'm waiting for isolinear chips. Computer?
Michele
--
{$_=pack'B8'x25,unpack'A8'x32,$a^=sub{po
p^pop}->(map substr
(($a||=join'',map--$|x$_,(unpack'w',unpack'u','G^<R<Y]*YB='
..'KYU;*EVH[.FHF2W+#"\Z*5TI/ER<Z`S(G.DZZ9OX0Z')=~/./g)x2,$_,
256),7,249);s/[^\w,]/ /g;$ \=/^J/?$/:"\r";print,redo}#JAPH,
| |
| Ilya Zakharevich 2007-06-23, 10:09 pm |
| [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Uri Guttman
<uri@stemsystems.com>], who wrote in article <x7aburirv7.fsf@mail.sysarch.com>:
> SP> Because the existing code base is huge and brittle - as a result
> SP> of twenty- odd years since Perl 1 of "just augmenting" it. There
> SP> was a very real need to do a major ground-up rewrite.
> actually perl5 was a complete rewrite by larry and didn't share any
> source code with perl4.
Wrong. Perl5 was incremenental - with a major part of code
"incremented", so the intersection is not very big. Nevertheless, we
hunted bugs caused by those "remnants" for many years, until Perl5
started to "more or less work".
Hope this helps,
Ilya
| |
| Clenna Lumina 2007-06-25, 7:10 pm |
| Uri Guttman wrote:
>
> existing Perl >> interpreter.
>
>
> actually perl5 was a complete rewrite by larry and didn't share any
> source code with perl4.
That is what I was getting at. Perl 5 was a complete rewrite in and of
itself, so why extend that existing base (keeping it more "pure" if you
will.)
|
|
|
|
|