On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Paul Prescod wrote:
> Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> >...
> >
> > Nah, a name change would certainly be in order--we'd have to call it the
> > ParrotIO system. :) Making the core bits modular is one of the goals, for
> > no other reason than to make it easy to have someone responsible for its
> > maintenance and development that doesn't need to be intimately familiar
> > with the rest of the interpreter system. And so it'll still function
> > properly when we compile down to native code and don't actually *have* an
> > interpreter handy.
>
> Would it make sense to poll both communities for people interested in
> helping with this effort and maybe making it a standalone project
> (perhaps on SourceForge?)?
>
> In fact, there are many bits of the C library that Python people would
> like to replace or improve but we don't have the resources alone. Maybe
> if all of the scripting language groups got together we would be able to
> do it. I'm not talking about the larger project of sharing bytecodes and
> so forth, but I could see that we probably have very similar needs with
> respect to files, memory allocation, networking, event loops, process
> handling and maybe threads. And the other scripting languages are
> probably not too far off either.
>
I know that there are some PHP developers who are also thinking
along the same lines -- myself for one. :)
Also, another area this might reach is into the extension space,
we're all developing the same extension for each of the different
languages, it would be great to find a way to pool the resources of all
the extension developers to create one extension together (ie, a singular
XSLT extension, used in Perl, Python, PHP, etc.)
-Sterling
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