On 13 Aug 2002, Piers Cawley wrote: > Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > At 06:56 PM 8/12/2002 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: > > >Here's a more interesting question: which parts of Parrot are > > >enshrined, and which are prototypes, ready to be thrown away? For > > >instance, I'd say much of languages/* is all proof-of-concept > > >prototype stuff; imcc may not be. The assembler I'd call a > > >prototype. The regex engine? The GC? ... > > > > On that topic, given that the reference assembler is too slow for > > on-the-fly assembly, I already decided that imcc should get its own > > C based assembler. Now that the C (XS) interface is gone, it means > > we will be duplicating code. I'm not saying the Perl based assembler > > is a BAD thing, but I think time spent "tuning" the reference > > assembler is wasted when it could be spent writing a really fast one > > in C. > > There's a small, mad part of me that wonders if parrot would now > support an assembler that was implemented in Parrot. Then we'd know > that the assembler was at least as portable as parrot itself...
Something like languages/parrot_compiler/ but working, right? Daniel Grunblatt.
