I'd like to second the "wow". I've been lurking on the list for two years, and I wanted to say how impressive this is. The promise of Parrot seems like a fantasy, and here you are with most of Python running at better speed than on it's own interpreter. It's gone from a fantasy to a defect list. It blows me away.
What Parrot will do for Perl, Python, Ruby, probably Java and .NET, and (I like to think) development in general, is pretty amazing. Thank you. Scott ----------- Scott Smith Manager of Application Design and Development Genome Sequencing Center Washington University School of Medicine Leopold Toetsch said: > Clark C. Evans wrote: >> Wow. I'm impressed you got anywhere near this far! Your work sounds >> very promising, a great way to validate Parrot's value proposition. > > Thanks. > >> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:24:48PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: >> | >> | >>> False=42 > >> But that's not a bug. If one assignes "42" to False, then this is what >> False means, 42, nothing more and nothing less. Yes, I know you know this. > > Well. There are (AFAIK) only 2 instances of the bool object, these > shouldn't be assignable. I think that doing "(True,False) = (0,1)" and > then importing some library would break things horribly. > >> If you could, would you set your goal slightly higher than >> just the Python tests? I'd love to see Parrot do Stackless Python! > > What I know of stackless isn't too much. But Parrot is using CPS > (continuation passing style) for all subroutine and method calls, > including coroutines aka generators. So I think that *is* stackless Python. > >> *bings* >> >> Clark > > leo >
