in reply to Re: Perl 6... do we need another vm?
in thread Perl 6... do we need another vm?

Once you start requiring compilation to bytecode, you lose the ability to just read the program any time you like. I've gotten to like that quite a lot over the years, and I'll miss it.

I expect that you'll rapidly see the evolution of reverse compilers - just like you did in the Java world - much easier to implement with high level VMs like Parrot.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Perl 6... do we need another vm?
by apotheon (Deacon) on Sep 04, 2006 at 20:40 UTC

    That's a comforting thought, and I suspect you're right, but there's still no substitute for running directly from source code.

    print substr("Just another Perl hacker", 0, -2);
    		 - apotheon
    CopyWrite Chad Perrin

[reply]
      That's a comforting thought, and I suspect you're right, but there's still no substitute for running directly from source code.

      You seem to think that it's going to be a common occurrence for the byte code to be shipped separately from the source. Personally I doubt that will happen much.

[reply]

        Why do you doubt that? I'm curious. I, for one, don't see any reason to doubt that people will be shipping Perl programs in bytecode form without source code.

        Of course CPAN modules will (I would think) be universally available as source code, but there are many other ways to distribute software besides CPAN.

        print substr("Just another Perl hacker", 0, -2);
        		 - apotheon
        CopyWrite Chad Perrin

[reply]

In Section Meditations