[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Cardinal-dev] Just for fun...
From: |
Dan Sugalski |
Subject: |
Re: [Cardinal-dev] Just for fun... |
Date: |
Thu, 9 May 2002 12:16:49 -0400 |
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