why we need perl6 if we have parrort?

[sonet]

If every dynamically languages (such as Perl6 and Python...)
will convert to PIR and automatically converted inside Parrot to
PBC (Parrot Bytecode).

1.Why we need perl6 ? We can learn how to coding in PIR direct.

2.Why not convert perl5 to PIR (convert to Parrot bytecode)?

 

[brian d foy]

If every dynamically languages (such as Perl6 and Python...)
will convert to PIR and automatically converted inside Parrot to
PBC (Parrot Bytecode).

1.Why we need perl6 ? We can learn how to coding in PIR direct.

For the same reason we have Java instead of programming in Java
bytecode: higher level languages condense higher level concepts into
keywords that represent a lot of behind-the-scenese lower-level code.

2.Why not convert perl5 to PIR (convert to Parrot bytecode)?

Some people were working on that with PONIE (Perl On New Interpreter
Image), but those are also the same people doing Perl 6 / parrot
things.

There's a lot more to Perl 6 than just using parrot for its interpreter.

 

[Clenna Lumina]

For the same reason we have Java instead of programming in Java
bytecode: higher level languages condense higher level concepts into
keywords that represent a lot of behind-the-scenese lower-level code.



Some people were working on that with PONIE (Perl On New Interpreter
Image), but those are also the same people doing Perl 6 / parrot
things.

There's a lot more to Perl 6 than just using parrot for its
interpreter.

Why did they go with parrot instead of just augmenting the existing Perl
interpreter. Using Parrot (or any 3rd party interpreter) just kinda maks
it feel less like Perl in a way; not as "pure" as Perl5 and ealier

 

[Michele Dondi]

1.Why we need perl6 ? We can learn how to coding in PIR direct.

Why we need C? We can learn how to coding in assembler direct.

2.Why not convert perl5 to PIR (convert to Parrot bytecode)?

5.12


Michele

 

[Michele Dondi]

Why did they go with parrot instead of just augmenting the existing Perl
interpreter. Using Parrot (or any 3rd party interpreter) just kinda maks

Because the existing Perl interpreter has already been augmented to a
point that the language proper is defined by the implementation, and
hacking the latter is far from being a trivial task.

it feel less like Perl in a way; not as "pure" as Perl5 and ealier

Because Perl 5 already runs on a bytecode, but with shortcomings.
Parrot aims at clearly separating the two levels...


Michele

 

[Uri Guttman]

SP> Because the existing code base is huge and brittle - as a result
SP> of twenty- odd years since Perl 1 of "just augmenting" it. There
SP> was a very real need to do a major ground-up rewrite.

actually perl5 was a complete rewrite by larry and didn't share any
source code with perl4.

uri

 

[Tad McClellan]

Why do we need assembler? We can learn how to coding by flipping toggle
switches on an operator console.

Why do we need switches? We can learn how to coding by whistling
into a modem.

 

[Michele Dondi]

Why do we need assembler? We can learn how to coding by flipping toggle
switches on an operator console.

Nope. I'm waiting for isolinear chips. Computer?


Michele

 

[Ilya Zakharevich]

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Uri Guttman

SP> Because the existing code base is huge and brittle - as a result
SP> of twenty- odd years since Perl 1 of "just augmenting" it. There
SP> was a very real need to do a major ground-up rewrite.

actually perl5 was a complete rewrite by larry and didn't share any
source code with perl4.

Wrong. Perl5 was incremenental - with a major part of code
"incremented", so the intersection is not very big. Nevertheless, we
hunted bugs caused by those "remnants" for many years, until Perl5
started to "more or less work".

Hope this helps,
Ilya

 

[Clenna Lumina]

existing Perl >> interpreter.


actually perl5 was a complete rewrite by larry and didn't share any
source code with perl4.

That is what I was getting at. Perl 5 was a complete rewrite in and of
itself, so why extend that existing base (keeping it more "pure" if you
will.)