[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A plea for a new old language
At 4:32 PM -0400 5/7/03, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
>There's a confusion in this discussion that Michael Vanier has
>My understanding was that Dan Sugalski was planning to use CPS in the
>*implementation* of Parrot.
>I was questioning why Dan would need to use CPS in implementing
>Parrot, or at any rate what that has to do with continuations in
>source languages. That question still stands.
I want to use CPS in the implementation of parrot as I find that,
conceptually at least, it solves a lot of messy problems for me. Or,
rather, avoids a lot of required messy code emission form compilers.
I want continuations in *source* languages because I want a pool of
developers comfortable with continuations. Making a required feature
of parrot something that people are profoundly uncomfortable with
isn't a good way to enlarge that pool.
1) I want to use CPS
2) To use CPS, I need developers who are OK with continuations
3) To get developers OK with continuations, they need experience with
4) To get them experience with continuations, they need to use a
language that they're comfortable with that also has continuations
5) Thus, I'd like a *reasonably popular* language in the common style
(procedural and/or OO, like it or not) to get continuations added
Whether or not you *always* need continuations to have an
implementation that uses CPS is irrelevant, as you at least
*sometimes* need them, and thus familiarity with them is necessary.
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
email@example.com have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk