At 4:21 AM +0900 2/12/02, Alexander Danilov wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 03:12:45AM +0900, Alan Chen wrote:
>>  On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 07:03:22AM +0900, triptych wrote:
>>  > - you can write bytecode assembly language. This gives access to 
>>a few more
>>  > facilities (methods can take arguments; blocks can be passed to bytecode
>>  > methods; the bytecode methods can yield results) but is obviously a lot
>>  > fiddlier than writing Ruby.
>>
>>  All right, I'll ask since nobody else has. :) What are the
>  > possiblities of emitting Parrot code?
>
>I am afraid, when the Parrot will be realised , Perl disappier as a
>language, it transform to platform like Java.

Nope, not gonna happen. Well, not short of me being replaced by some 
sort of Pod Person, or having an unfortunate encounter with a bus.

>I don't like Java.
>It's huge and slow. Ruby is light and fast enough.

This is a 'feature' of the two languages, though with a JIT I think 
you'll probably find Java faster than Ruby for many equivalent 
things. (We're finding a boost with Parrot's JIT doing perlish 
things, FWIW)

>I would like to see
>what's happend whis Parrot in the next year. I would like to have a
>language , but not platform and I wish it for you.

If you have a language you have a platform. Goes with the 
territory--a language with no runtime support is essentially useless, 
and if you have runtime support you've got a platform. (Granted maybe 
not with a full IDE and all the bells and whistles, but still it's a 
platform)
-- 
                                         Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
dan / sidhe.org                         have teddy bears and even
                                       teddy bears get drunk