On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:48, Michal Wallace wrote: > It does seem like there are some snags getting > languages to talk to each other, even with the > calling conventions, but even so, I'm even more > convinced now that a generic, overridable > code-generator is the way to go. > > It seems to me that if we want to maximize the > number of languages using it, the generic > compiler shouldn't depend on anything but > C and parrot... But until we get it working, > I'd like to stick to a dynamic language like > python/perl/lua/scheme. And, well, my code's > already in python... :) [though I'd actually > love to try out some lua 5]
I like the concept, but I have a comment about the implementation. For PHP, and even for Python, it is necessery to do code generation on the fly, for things like eval() and dynamic imports (php's ""include"" is always a dynamic import). Thus the code generator is best suited to be in a language that can be run from within the parrot machine, otherwise statements like 'eval()' would not be possible without binding parrot to a non-portable C library. I would instead suggest that we pick a suitable 'dynamic' language to write the code generator in, so it can be self-hosting. Regards, Stephen Thorne.
