At 2:37 PM -0400 8/4/03, Michal Wallace wrote:
>On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>> >If your efforts save Dan Sugalski time in implementing Python on
>> >Parrot, realize that it may cost me a round of drinks and a laundry
>> >run (if Dan has a good aim).
>
>> Nah, this isn't something to worry about, since I can't use it by the
>> terms of the challenge--I have to use the bytecode, not the source.
>
>Okay, that's just silly. :)
>
>What do you guys think about changing the bet
>to allow using the source?
To be honest, I'd rather leave it as it is--not because I don't think
that parsing python and compiling to parrot isn't worthwhile (I think
it is) but because I can be reasonably assured that the conversion
will take place (because I want it to happen and have wagered pie on
that want, and thus will make it happen :). Besides, I'm not much of
a parser guy, thus the parsing part's actually more difficult than
the bytecode translation, which is reasonably straightforward.
There's also the matter of effort at bet-time--when I get a good
working python bytecode->parrot bytecode translation program, folks
can use the current python install as a compiler, which gets a goal
(running python programs on parrot) achieved faster, since there's
less effort in writing a bytecode translator than there is writing a
compiler.
OTOH, the... 'interesting' task that is parsing perl may well have
skewed by feelings on the difficulties of bytecode translation vs
source compilation. ;-P
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
dan at 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