Hi,

Andreas Otto wrote:

> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >
> > Dan Kuchler <kuchler / ajubasolutions.com> writes:
> >
> > > If done correctly, only the perl front end would have to be
> > > implemented, but it would give others the opportunity for trying to
> > > write some new syntax (which could be like tcl, python, etc.) that
> > > would work with the existing perl backend.

<snip>

>   On some time in the future the discussion will come to the point
>   that it is nessecarry to work together and *all* languages will
>   benefit.
>
>   To write a generic computer language which do
>
>     perl,phyton,tcl ==> META code ==> perl,phyton,tcl,bytecode,c ...
>
>   you need 2 *big* brain guys for every language and ~6 month's
>   full time (6*12 hours) work.

While Guido pointed out some problems with a common runtime in
<URL:http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=652175964>, I don't see why this
precludes adding features that would be useful to Python, Tcl, and Ruby to
it, if the Perl6 people were cooperative. They might well want to
eventually (somehow) make such capabilities accessible from Perl6+.

Big question: is anyone discussing these sorts of things with anyone
directly involved in the Perl6 effort? Does anyone know of any good
prospects for ambassadors out there?

(I think that developing Perl6 in such a way that its core could be "the
.Net of the leading open source languages" might have some sort of
meta-appeal for Larry Wall's post-modern language outlook. :-)

--
Conrad Schneiker
(This note is unofficial and subject to improvement without notice.)