Re: Questions On the Perl VM, Parrot, .Net, and the JVM...

In the Dr. Dobbs article about the The MIT Lightweight Languages Workshop Eugene Eric Kim had this to say:

Several attendees noted during the talk that the Perl community seemed to be reinventing the wheel in areas such as virtual-machine implementations and garbage collection.

I hope that isn't necessarily true.

--
John.

Comment on Re: Questions On the Perl VM, Parrot, .Net, and the JVM...

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Questions On the Perl VM, Parrot, .Net, and the JVM... by Matts (Deacon) on Feb 01, 2002 at 23:44 UTC
It's totally true. And for many good reasons. The communities who's wheels we are reinventing are not open. They are not welcoming. They are anally retentive. They expect us to bend to their rules. Well Perl always made its own rules, and for that it needs a VM made for them. But they should perhaps look back at themselves and think just why we're reinventing wheels. Perhaps they need to reinvent their own rulebooks? I mean how successful has Smalltalk and Scheme really been in the commercial world? Not terribly. Even compared to Perl's small standards.	[reply]
Re: Re: Questions On the Perl VM, Parrot, .Net, and the JVM... by dreadpiratepeter (Priest) on Feb 02, 2002 at 15:23 UTC
Well, as Larry says, "If you're determined to reinvent the wheel, at least try to invent a better one." And if the current vm techology is an all-purpose radial, then the Perl6 effort is a high-performance tire, capable of higher speeds, tighter turns, and performance in worse conditions. And it's optimized for the kind of driving that the Perl6 car does. Seriously, Perl needs a different type of VM than Java. Go to dev.perl.com or talk to Dan Sugalski or Simon Cozens to see why. -pete Entropy is not what is used to be.	[reply]