Re: [pirate] OSCON slides
Michal Wallace wrote: On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Leopold Toetsch wrote: There are still issues e.g. with namespaces. I've put out numberless mails on p6i where I invited HLL folks to discuss it and make some proposals. Guess how many answers these mails got. Zero? I don't think p6i is the right place for that. We should have a low-traffic compiler list. Yep and I've cc'ed p6c. Michal J Wallace leo
Re: [pirate] OSCON slides
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Leopold Toetsch wrote: There are still issues e.g. with namespaces. I've put out numberless mails on p6i where I invited HLL folks to discuss it and make some proposals. Guess how many answers these mails got. Zero? I don't think p6i is the right place for that. We should have a low-traffic compiler list. Like... this one here for pirate, which is all about generic compiler issues. :) And there is: http://svn.perl.org/parrot/trunk/docs/req/model_users.pod I like that! Sincerely, Michal J Wallace Sabren Enterprises, Inc. - contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] hosting: http://www.cornerhost.com/ my site: http://www.withoutane.com/ -
Re: [pirate] OSCON slides
Leopold Toetsch wrote: Citing 33.html: Parrot's current implementation relies on the ability to morph an object to another type. Leo has attempted to challenge this a number of times, but to my knowledge never successfully. I'm a bit bewildered that pirate folks seem not to bother following parrot dev list [1] or even summaries. For short: n_add d, l, r will create a new destination PMC and with the help of .HLL a new Python PMC. See also t/dynclass/pycomplex_3 and _4. (This is just one point of several from the slides of what I'm inclined to name FUD) leo E.g. [1] http://xrl.us/gz5b At the end of the presentation, a person in the front row asked me if I planned to continue to contribute to the project. My response was something along the lines of, I appreciate having been given the opportunity to contribute, I hope I fixed more things than I broke, but I probably won't contribute in any major way again unless I see signs of things turning around. From the back row, Chip introduced himself. At which point, I ammended my previous statement saying that Chip was in a position to make a difference. My experiences with Parrot was that everything I did was met with either direct animosity or by being ignored. If that changed, I could see myself becoming active again. In the past few weeks, I have received two pieces of feedback from the Parrot community. One was attacking me for having adopted the suggestion by Leo that the object of the method should be passed on the first argument of method call. The second was to attack me for saying something nice about morphing. I said in slide 3 that this presentation was based mostly on memory. In slide 4, I said that Parrot is evolving. I said in slide 31 that my memory was based on the work I did in December of 2004. I said in slide 33 that Leo was working to change how morphing was being used in Parrot, but my real point was made in slide 36: morphing was cheap and efficient in practice. My research prior to the presentation was to check to see if morphing was still in the VTable, and it is. For now, I'll probably limit the amount of time I devote to Parrot as there are plenty of other places where I feel more welcome. - Sam Ruby
Re: [pirate] OSCON slides
On Aug 5, 2005, at 20:17, Sam Ruby wrote: My experiences with Parrot was that everything I did was met with either direct animosity or by being ignored. If that changed, I could see myself becoming active again. I would very much appreciate your contributions the more that parrot was and is evolving in a direction that should simplify e.g. implementing Python. A lot of parrot cruft that caused vivid discusssions (which was never animosity) is gone. There are still issues e.g. with namespaces. I've put out numberless mails on p6i where I invited HLL folks to discuss it and make some proposals. Guess how many answers these mails got. And there is: http://svn.perl.org/parrot/trunk/docs/req/model_users.pod In the past few weeks, I have received two pieces of feedback from the Parrot community. One was attacking me for having adopted the suggestion by Leo that the object of the method should be passed on the first argument of method call. You know my position very well with that point. I've always said that Dan's 'we pass the object out-of-band' is not the way our target languages are working. And I said that your implementation is a hack to work around these deficiency of parrot. Passing the invocant twice to e.g. '__abs__' isn't a solution either the more that the user visible signature of that function changes. Anyway the new calling conventions will for sure pass the object as the first argument and the calling conventions will very likely support the full Pythons specs. *args is already done, as well as all issues regarding I/S/N/P mismatch. Parrot just converts these argumens forth and back as needed so that it's fully transparent for a HLL that just has PMCs. The second was to attack me for saying something nice about morphing. Sorry if I missed the niceness factor of morph in your slides (I just saw that html page, you know). Python's scalars (and some other types don't morph). Any implementation that forces morph for doing e.g. 'a=2+3' can only be considered being b0rken by all pythonistas in your talk. I'm really missing 'nice' in such a slide the more that it's based on ... I said in slide 3 that this presentation was based mostly on memory. ... old and unneeded assumptions how parrot works. Again you very well know my position regarding this point. I always said there shoud be a means to create a new destination PMC. And this is implemented and working since months. In slide 4, I said that Parrot is evolving. I said in slide 31 that my memory was based on the work I did in December of 2004. Ok. Sorry I've missed that. - Sam Ruby leo
