At 06:11 PM 8/8/2001 -0700, Paul Prescod wrote:
>It is my gut feeling that the only way to get to a common runtime (if it
>is possible at all) is to take the development out of the hands of any
>language group and put it in a trusted third party's hands. If any
>language group feels like its concerns are going to get second-class
>attention, they'll go back and focus on their own implementation.
I think it's possible for things to be done otherwise, but it puts a heavy
burden on the implementation group to be actively engaged with the language
groups and be as impartial as can be managed. You almost need to take the
implementation group that starts this and pry them loose to be an entity in
and of themselves, separate from the original language group. (FWIW, this
is part of my Master Plan. Dunno if it's part of Simon's)
It's certainly the more difficult way to go than to start with an impartial
third party. (Of course, then there's the problem of *finding* an impartial
third party for something like this) For the record, if something like this
does go through, I'm all for it and'll bow out of the way. (Any resemblance
to dropped hot rocks is purely coincidental ;)
As for the common runtime, that's by far the least of the problems. I mean,
we all manage with C, of all things, running on hardware that's not in the
least forgiving of dynamic languages. We'd be hard pressed to find a worse
environment to run on short of dragging out one of the old LISP or Forth
systems...
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
dan@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4