From: Sam Tregar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > I'm a jerk, so I have to ask: do they exist? What platform are you > talking about where there exists a JVM and where no C compiler can > target the architecture? How did they write the JVM with no C > compiler? C was written in NB/B NB was written in B B was written in TMG TMG was written in Assembler Just because you could compile C, NB, B, and TMG code on the same hardware doesn't mean that some people might have preferred to toss the NB, B, and TMG code in favor of doing everything in C. (see history: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/chist.html) So yes, you're right. Someone should be able to compile C for any target architecture where there exists a JVM. The question appears to be whether or not they should have to... What I don't understand is why we all feel compelled to continue beating this dead horse? If I, the resident ignoramus lurker, can get it... then it is definitely time to be moving on to fresher topics. The fact is that the people who are available and motivated to do Perl6 Internals, are bent on putting their considerable experience with C and Perl5 in C into a first implementation of Perl6 in C. I don't believe this is in question. Everyone is violently in agreement that "the initial design should be so general as to be language-independent". So, it is important that the C's detractors stick around to point out the C-isms that will inevitably crop up. Yes, the first implementation may turn out to be the only implementation. But that will only occur if the C detractors fail to stick around and contribute to keeping everyone honest on a truly language independent design. Or, if they are then unmotivated to do a concurrent or subsequent implementation in another language.
