At 05:44 PM 8/21/2002 -0400, John Porter wrote: >The outstanding question is, "Is imcc a part of the parrot system?" >When compiler writers target parrot, do we really want them to target imcc? >I have a feeling some of you would answer "yes" to that question all too
My answer is "yes", not because I dictate anything, but because I would direct people to the fastest path. People that want to duplicate effort are welcome here too. I can also foresee that people might not like the C implementation, so once they bootstrap a compiler, they may wish to write imcc out of the picture. I for one am not happy with the current speed of Perl for compiling or assembling, so I wish to stick with C. At some point, I hope to finish a C# like language for Parrot at which time I hope to write a LALR generator in that language and reimplement the compiler completely in pure Parrot, including imcc. >blithely. But I don't see imcc mentioned in the PDD's. >Heck, pasm itself is little more than a "possible variation"; >the PDD's strongly imply that the perl6 compiler will compile directly >to parrot bytecode. imcc is part of a toolkit, as I see it. It is there to make your life easier. Why not invest in it? -Melvin
