[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: So, what the heck is a continuation anyway?
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:54:40 -0500
> From: Adam Turoff <email@example.com>
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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
> 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
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
3. And of course, I mean you start from an existing Scheme VM. I wouldn't
think of proposing that you write one.