Re: [Cardinal-dev] Just for fun...

[Dan Sugalski]

At 9:03 AM -0700 5/8/02, Phil Tomson wrote:
> On 8 May 2002, Erik [ISO-8859-1] BÂgfors wrote:
>  > Looking at .Net and how it tries to be language independent one can see
> >  that all languages has to be modified a little bit (or alot).  For
> >  example they all need to be (at least partially) object oriented and
> >  they can't do multiple inheritance. I've heard people saying that VB.NET
> >  feels like C# with another syntax.  I know I don't want my ruby to
>  > change lots just because It's running on parrot.
>
> From what I've seen of .NET it's not very amenable to dynamic languages.

Yep. There are some definite issues in there with it.

> It seems that Parrot will be much more flexible than .NET.  I suspect that
> early versions of Cardinal will not be fully Ruby compliant, but that as
> Parrot matures and Cardinal matures we'll be able to be  very compliant
> with Ruby.

This is one of the reasons I really want to get something besides
perl as a complete language hosted on Parrot. The interpreter's still
amenable to change in some fundamental areas if need be, but that
won't last forever. At some point it'll be infeasable to change
things, so I really want to get as much considered now as I can. A
quick smack to the interpreter design now beats having language
compilers spit out workaround code for the rest of eternity.
--
                                        Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
address@hidden                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk