At 6:37 PM +0900 3/4/02, Paul E.C. Melis wrote:
>In the first issue of The Perl Review, there's a (short) article on Parrot.

It's just the first of many. :)

Later ones should be longer, more technical, and address individual 
pieces of Parrot. That first one was mostly an overview for the folks 
who haven't been following the development, or potentially even 
realize that development's actually taking place.

>The interesting thing is that Ruby is mentioned alongside Python, as example
>languages that Parrot should also be able to work for. See
>http://www.theperlreview.com/Issues/The_Perl_Review_0_1.pdf

FWIW, I bet brian wouldn't mind a "Ruby for Perl programmers" article.

>Of course, it will take some time for Parrot to mature, but I wonder what
>the future plans are for Ruby with respect to Parrot... Matz?

We've already covered this, and I expect by the time this makes it 
out you'll have at least a dozen references to Matz's decision on 
this. Parrot won't be the reference engine for the next version of 
Ruby. (A decision I agree with, honestly) Neither will it be the core 
engine for the next version of Python.

Parrot *will* run both Ruby and Python code in addition to Perl (and 
Scheme) code. My goal is to run them all faster than their reference 
implementations (well, except for perl 6, as we'll be the reference 
implementation). If we manage that we all win, as there'll be a fast 
interpreter for them all. If we don't, well, everyone still wins, 
since that'll mean the other interpreters will be even faster. I like 
fast. Fast is good. :)
-- 
                                         Dan

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