Re: So, what the heck is a continuation anyway?

[Matthias Felleisen <address@hidden>]

  > Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:54:40 -0500
  > From: Adam Turoff <ziggy@panix.com>
  > Cc: simon@simon-cozens.org, alex@shop.com, ll1-discuss@ai.mit.edu
  > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
  > Content-Disposition: inline
  > User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i
  > 
  > On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 09:33:07AM -0500, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
  > > 
  > > The archives do not explain why a VM in C that happens to execute Scheme
  > > byte codes does not work for Parrot-hosted languages. Research would, but 
  > > I doubt you'd care. -- Matthias
  > 
  > Um... 
  > 
  > 	I think the set of scheme programmers good enough to do
  > 	this who are also familiar enough with ruby, perl and/or
  > 	python is empty. Certainly far too small to sustain
  > 	development. Plus there are portability issues.
  > 
  > 	Parrot's in C not because it's the best language for the
  > 	task (it isn't, by far--I loathe C in a number of ways)
  > 	but because it's both widespread enough to have a reasonably
  > 	large group of folks competent in it for our purposes, and
  > 	on enough platforms to be give us a chance of running
  > 	everywhere.
  > 
  > (http://www.ai.mit.edu/%7Egregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/msg00164.html)
  > 
  > Z.
  > 


1. That's precisely why I said a Scheme VM written in C. I agree that you
wouldn't find enough Schemers interested in writing a front-end from Perl
to a Scheme VM. 

2. Do you actually think that you'd notice that you're using a VM that
executes Scheme byte codes? Think about it. Take a look at an existing
machine. 

3. And of course, I mean you start from an existing Scheme VM. I wouldn't
think of proposing that you write one.

-- Matthias