Java (the language) -> Parrot shouldn't be any more difficult than any other language (certainlly easier than Perl5, and probably Perl6, too). Java Bytecode -> Parrot is iffy. I noticed that Microsoft ships a Java Bytecode -> CLR Bytecode converter with the .NET SDK, but I don't know how well it works.
Any static language built on Parrot will have the disadvantage that Parrot is meant for dynamic langauges. That's a lot of extra overhead that can be ditched if you're focusing on languages that tend to be static.
"There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.
In reply to Re: Parrot, Java, and Harmony
by hardburn
in thread Parrot, Java, and Harmony
by dragonchild
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |