On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Mike Heise wrote:
> Isn't Winxed already roughly JS with minimal changes to access Parrot
> internals?
This is a common misconception that I'd like to be cleared up if we
are to seriously consider Winxed as a language for this purpose. It is
superficially similar
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
there is a
lot of debugging work to do still. The build does not complete and the
test suite does not run. I am looking for volunteers to help out with
the debugging effort.
Volunteers ... good.
But if we've recruited a *team* to work on the IMCC goal, shouldn't we
tur
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:59:44AM -0500, Peter Lobsinger wrote:
Get away from PIR (and we're
working to provide you the tools to do this), and you most likely will
not have this issue.
If I may channel Jim Keenan for a moment: Is there any estimate as
to which Parro
The whiteknight/imcc_compreg_pmc branch is the most recent in a series
of branches to clean up IMCC. Between the various branches I've made
on the topic, a significant number of things have changed with respect
to IMCC:
1) The IMCC interface functions have been cleaned and completely
unified. Ther
Isn't Winxed already roughly JS with minimal changes to access Parrot internals?
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Jonathan Leto wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> As long as we are thinking big, what about using Javascript as our
> internal high-level language?
>
> Then we leverage the fact that many people outs
On Tuesday, 1 February 2011 at 22:58, Will Coleda wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM, chromatic wrote:
> > On Tuesday 01 February 2011 at 03:05, Vasily Chekalkin wrote:
> >
> > > Strong -1 from me. "Parrot" developers doesn't have resources to
> > > maintain own very-similar-but-slightly-
Howdy,
As long as we are thinking big, what about using Javascript as our
internal high-level language?
Then we leverage the fact that many people outside of Parrot already
know this language, and it doesn't have the blood of "Python vs Perl
vs. Ruby vs. TCL vs Lua" smeared all over it. Although,
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM, chromatic wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 February 2011 at 03:05, Vasily Chekalkin wrote:
>
>> Strong -1 from me. "Parrot" developers doesn't have resources to
>> maintain own very-similar-but-slightly-different version of NQP.
>
> I did a bit of research on RPython, but it
On 01/02/2011 17:12, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Okay. In this case, part of my message is "Here's a (very) small
program that shows the large delays."
It's entirely possible that this example is small in source but
has a large memory footprint... but I don't think this should
be the case. Howev
On Tuesday 01 February 2011 at 03:05, Vasily Chekalkin wrote:
> Strong -1 from me. "Parrot" developers doesn't have resources to
> maintain own very-similar-but-slightly-different version of NQP.
I did a bit of research on RPython, but it's not standardized either. Are
there any other small lang
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:11:07PM +0100, Nick Wellnhofer wrote:
> >Even in loops where there's a non-trivial amount of work taking
> >place in the body of the loop, Parrot's GC has the impact of making
> >some iterations take 10x longer than the rest.
> [...]
> Another reason for the large pauses
On 31/01/2011 21:48, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
So there's nothing wrong with C, other than it currently
takes a lot more work to construct than C and we should
probably see about optimizing it. But the expense of C
serves very much to further the point of the demonstration:
Even in loops where
Hello.
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
> It seems to me that NQP should fork into two similar but different
> languages, one for Parrot's tool chain, and one for Rakudo's target. If they
> were called different things, it would keep the two contexts clear.
Strong -1 fro
Thanx for url. I hadn't seen that discussion. If I understood the
discussion correctly, seems chromatic and whiteknight came to the same
conclusion: split the Parrot requirements of NQP from the Rakudo ones.
It means too that NQP for Parrot can be stripped down a bit too.
On 02/01/2011 12:54 P
Hi,
Am 01.02.2011 10:49, schrieb Richard Hainsworth:
Seems the guidance about NQP for the toolchain that Bruce Gray asked for
has sparked responses to a wider debate.
Which has also spilled to IRC, unsurprisingly.
If you haven't already, I recommend reading yesterday's #parrot
discussion abou
Seems the guidance about NQP for the toolchain that Bruce Gray asked for
has sparked responses to a wider debate.
It is clear that the toolchain needed for parrot needs to be written in
an HLL for the very reasons that HLLs are better than low level
languages in the first place.
So one quest
16 matches
Mail list logo
