good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
Re^9: Why Perl 6 is taking so !@#$ longby BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Feb 28, 2006 at 19:06 UTC||Need Help??|
Actually, it quite possible that GHC would run on more modern platforms that Perl, but I'm not convinced that is relevant.
Most people using Perl use binary distributions. Even on Linux, a large proportion of people install perl via OS specific distribution tools.
I know I'll cop a load of abuse for saying this, but I do not see the imperative that says it must be possible to build the entire tool chain, including the compilers that compile the compilers, from source.
So long as
Then I fail to see the benefit of discarding all the benefits that would acrue from using a higher level language compiler, in favour of C and gcc, just because they're ubiquitous?
If Perl6 and the VM are any good, then once you have a set of working binaries for both, then you can set up another project to port those tools themselves, to Perl6/VM assembler.
Just as Perl5 builds a miniperl to use in the construction of the real thing, so you could eventually arrive at a VM written in it's own source language and use a (downloaded) binary distribution to bootstrap a fully self-compiled toolset.
There is always a bootstrap problem. You need a C compiler (or binary distribution) to build gcc before you can use gcc. So what is wrong with requiring a binary distribution of compiler X to start the chain for the VM?
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.