RFC: Move build tools to Perl5, developer tools to Perl6

Christoph Otto christoph at mksig.org
Fri Feb 22 04:11:38 UTC 2013


On Thu, Feb 21, 2013, at 20:02, Brian Gernhardt wrote:
> 
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 10:04 PM, Jimmy Zhuo <jimmy.zhuo at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Well, the original front is not written by PIR, it's by C.
> 
> And whiteknight rewrote it in Winxed because it was clearer and faster. 
> 
> http://whiteknight.github.com/2011/01/20/parrot_in_parrot_new_frontend.html
> http://whiteknight.github.com/2011/08/08/frontend_parrot2.html
> http://irclog.perlgeek.de/parrot/2011-08-19#i_4300881
> 
> 
> I don't think the frontend is _the_ reason to keep Winxed around.  The
> reason to keep it in core is so that I never have to write a single line
> of PIR again.
> 
> ~~ benabik

That's the biggest thing winxed has going for it and the reason why
there's no reason for it to go away.  Its runtime requirements are much
less complicated than full nqp and it can compile code down to (mostly)
standalone PIR.  If you've ever written straight PIR, you'll know why
that's a good thing.  I'm not saying that its use should be expanded,
largely because the path to a Parrot that continues to exist 24 months
from now involves cutting things out rather than adding them, but winxed
isn't hurting anything and could potentially help us later if we're able
to boost Parrot's performance sufficiently.

I'm looking at much of the current work as a warm-up before the main
event.  Ripping out opsc will reduce Parrot's dependence on nqp-rx but
the real speed gain is profiling and optimizing, especially in improving
pcc (as has been mentioned).  Other things are easier to do and
relatively harmless, but only profiling and optimizing for nqp are what
will get Parrot into an attractive state.

Christoph


More information about the parrot-dev mailing list