Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Re: Giving data about why it's hard to use B:: to port to the JVM]
> Yes, *PLEASE*. Some hard data is always nice, even when (or especially
> when) it's unpleasant to hear.
I won't have "hard numbers", as it is always completely possible that some
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 08:18:05AM -0500, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 05:06:27AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Because the Python folks didn't have a problem basing JPython off of
> > > CPython.
> >
> > Actually, this one isn't a good comparison. Python is substant
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 05:06:27AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Because the Python folks didn't have a problem basing JPython off of
> > CPython.
>
> Actually, this one isn't a good comparison. Python is substantially easier
> to parse, and, is a much simpler language. I like Perl becaus
bkuhn wrote:
> > Why should we center our entire design around C?
Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because Perl is a write-once-run-anywhere platform, and C is the only
> viable way of maintaining Perl support on all of the platforms currently
> supported.
>
> Because most (all?) of
Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why should we center our entire design around C? Sure, the canonical perl6
>
> Because that's what we got. Because that's what we have in the maximal
> number of platforms. Because that's what works.
The design doesn't have to center around
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 10:23:55PM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> However, the JVM is a powerful environment for generalized bytecode and for
> allowing bytecode of different languages to communicate.
So's Microsoft vaporware ".NET platform". And the second version
of that bytecoded runtime wi
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 10:23:55PM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> > > > At 07:49 AM 12/6/00 -0800, Daniel Chetlin wrote:
> > > > >Simply deciding that `eval STRING' is "unimplemented" on these
> > > > >theoretical ports and binary compiles is the best idea I've heard yet,
> > > > >but we should r
> > > At 07:49 AM 12/6/00 -0800, Daniel Chetlin wrote:
> > > >Simply deciding that `eval STRING' is "unimplemented" on these
> > > >theoretical ports and binary compiles is the best idea I've heard yet,
> > > >but we should remember that `require' is built on `eval STRING'.
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2000
