On Jan 31, 5:48 pm, chromatic <chroma...@wgz.org> wrote: > On Monday 31 January 2011 at 08:32, Christoph wrote: > > > I don't agree with > > the philosophy that choosing a non-modular design to facilitate vendor- > > lockin is ok as long as it's the 'good guys' who do it; > > No one is seriously suggesting Parrot adopt a deliberate strategy to *thwart* > cross-VM portability.
I'm not talking about a strategy for Parrot here, but what my (probably wrong) impression of your reaction to the Rakudo folks' plans for nqp was: As I see it, there already is a Rakudo/Parrot compatibility layer: it's just ad-hoc and sprinkled over the whole code-base. The Rakudo folks want to make their runtime more modular by moving all the bits and pieces to a single point - nqp - which you oppose. In my opinion, this could be benefical to both Rakudo and Parrot, though: Rakudo will get portability, whereas Parrot gets to see where exactly it does not meet Rakudos needs, and the long-term goal would be to make the compatibility-layer disappear... Christoph _______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
