On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 10:42:31PM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> What I seek is perl design documentation that allows someone to take the set
> of PDD's and reimplement perl in another language.
What will aid Perl reimplementations are the PDDs. C-Centrism in the
PDDs is a moot point.
> The
Using IBM's choice of Linux and Apache as an example, the compiler is not theirs, it's
GCC.
Also, when I was doing support for biochemical and statistical modelling at Merck, the
scientists choice was GCC over the HP native compiler.
(porting GCC to HPUX was one of my responsibilities)
Linu
"Bradley M. Kuhn" wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> >
> > > And, it will make the barrier for entry for new internals hacker lower.
>
> Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Really? Do you honestly believe there are more Java programmers than C
> > programmers? P
At 10:44 AM 12/8/00 -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
>On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> > I already knew that "writing the canonical Perl6 implementation in Java was
> > likely a lost cause. ;) However, I hope we won't confuse this issue
> with the
> > one of making it possible to port Perl to
From: Sam Tregar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> I'm a jerk, so I have to ask: do they exist? What platform are you
> talking about where there exists a JVM and where no C compiler can
> target the architecture? How did they write the JVM with no C
> compiler?
C was written in NB/B
NB was written
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 08:55:25 -0800
Subject: Update on C--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentle C-- colleagues
This message is just to update you on the state of play in C--.
Please do send mail to the l
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Now, I would agree that there are more C hackers about. However, many
> people are graduating college with computer science degrees having worked
> mostly in Java and very little in C. In 6 years or so, we may find that
> there are more Java hackers
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 01:17:01PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> We seem to be arguing about the best method for making it *im*possible
> to use anything but the initially-chosen-implementation language to
> implement perl. This feels like a bad thing.
I don't see that; I see that we're all agre
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 10:36:48AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 10:11:11PM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> > I believe strongly that we need to make sure the design does not become so C
> > specific so as to leave us where perl5 has left us: "No C compiler on your
> > platf
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 10:42:31PM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Since we are starting from scratch, why not make these things possible if it
> isn't too hard? And, I don't think it is, if we are simply mindful to "not
> be C specific" as we design.
I think everyone's agreed this, many times o
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 10:11:11PM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> I believe strongly that we need to make sure the design does not become so C
> specific so as to leave us where perl5 has left us: "No C compiler on your
> platform? Sorry!".
Huh? There are platforms have Java VMs but not C compi
11 matches
Mail list logo
