PDS aftermath: .nqp programs in Parrot core

Moritz Lenz moritz at faui2k3.org
Mon Jan 31 15:08:38 UTC 2011

Am 30.01.2011 03:51, schrieb Bruce Gray:
> Perl 5?
> Obviously not! If it *were* acceptable, we would not have moved all
> that Perl 5 code into PIR, now would we?


> Perl 6?
> No, for political reasons; Having chunks of Parrot written in Perl 6
> will be disagreeable for Perl 6's "competitors". Isn't this why PaFo
> is separate from the Perl Foundation?

There are also technical reasons: we haven't explored how well Perl 6 
can be optimized, so it doesn't seem like a very good option to offer as 
"the" HLL to write parrot components in. (Which is why NQP-rx only 
support a subset of Perl 6 that fits very well onto Parrot).

> C?
> Acceptable, but only where PASM/PIR are problematic. For example, IMCC
> is being replaced, having been a long-term thorn due to its C-ness.

It kinda feels wrong to write a virtual machine, and then fall back to 
the most basic HLL, and do the memory management etc. all manually again.

> Definitely acceptable.
> (but rarely optimal or even advisable for anything not tiny)

I wouldn't want to write large portions of code in PASM.

> PIR?
> Definitely acceptable, and usually preferred.
> (but sometimes sub-optimal; the few large PIR programs make us wish
> for something higher level)
> There would be some benefit, though, if nothing was above PASM/PIR level.
> No real bootstrapping concerns!
> (Whoops, not true with IMCC's replacement)

I wouldn't want to write large portions of code in PIR. goto, I hear 
your call...
And as far as I can tell, PIR wasn't desgined to be written by humans.

Even if we replace IMCC by something that can be easily modified, I 
don't think it's a promising prospect to morph it into a HLL that's 
pleasant to write.

> NQP?


> [Other, *future* possibilities]
> QJS? (PIR++)?
> Since IMCC is the thing that has been holding back the evolution of
> PIR, and IMCC will soon be replaced by something easier to modify, we
> could see improvements to PIR that would alleviate some of the need
> for a NQP-level language. However, not all past limits to PIR's
> evolution have been IMCC's fault. PIR has been intended as fairly
> low-level in the past, with just enough sugar over PASM to keep
> everyone from choking. To enhance PIR to anywhere close to NQP's level
> would be a major change in philosophy.

see above.

> Not-Quite-NQP?
> Something similar to NQP could be created, to forever be oriented to
> Parrot's own needs. Particle mentioned forking the current NQP.


> My take on the original discussion is less that NQP is walking away from
> Parrot,
> and more that NQP is walking in a direction that it dearly hopes Parrot
> will also soon follow.


More information about the parrot-dev mailing list