Proposal: parrot-compilers list
Melvin Smith
and subsequently fizzle out (maybe due to Parrot slow
progress or maybe due to lack of critical mass).
I propose creating 'parrot-compilers' as a general
purpose list for any and all language development
(until an appropriate time where said language outgrows the
list maybe...). This might allow many small projects to
feed off the collective energy of other small projects.
I also volunteer to maintain and mail the FAQ out monthly,
which is something I always liked about comp.compilers.
The list would center around IMCC and higher up the
compiler stack with the addition of various other topics that might
not be specific to Parrot. Also it would, by namesake, be
language neutral and might bring more people in from
non-Perl camps as well as give some of us compiler
enthusiasts a place to have our long drawn out spam^H^H^H^Hdiscussions
without drowning the mailboxes of the general VM population.
-Melvin
Sterling Hughes
I think this would be a *very* cool thing.
-Sterling
Pete Lomax
<win...@edwardbear.org> wrote:
>I think this would be a *very* cool thing.
What he said.
Pete
Pete
http://palacebuilders.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/euphoria.html
Joseph Ryan
>On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:35:51 -0800, Sterling Hughes
><win...@edwardbear.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I think this would be a *very* cool thing.
>>
>>
>
>What he said.
>
>
Ditto.
- Joe
Stéphane Payrard
>
> >I think this would be a *very* cool thing.
>
> What he said.
>
> Pete
idem
--
stef
Leopold Toetsch
> I propose creating 'parrot-compilers' as a general
> purpose list for any and all language development
As long as traffic on p6i is as low as current, I don't see the need for
another list.
> -Melvin
leo
Melvin Smith
I'm concerned about appearing more inviting to non-Perl types,
which would be good.
The name of the current list is misleading, and I don't
expect it will change.
-Melvin
Jeff Clites
> In the past couple of years we've seen several sub-projects pop-up
> and subsequently fizzle out (maybe due to Parrot slow
> progress or maybe due to lack of critical mass).
>
> I propose creating 'parrot-compilers' as a general
> purpose list for any and all language development
...
So I'll be one of the few nay-sayers. I'm not definitely against it,
but here are two counter-arguments:
1) It's likely that we've seen very little traffic (at least recently)
about language development because either as you said Parrot isn't
quite ready, or because of lack of interest. If so, a new list won't
help.
2) Forking a list almost always leads to an increase of messages of the
form "you should be asking this on the other list...", and/or of
cross-posting, neither of which is very interesting to deal with. I'm
of the opinion that unless traffic is unmanageable, fewer lists is
better. So I think a fair question to ask is: How many people currently
subscribed to this list would not subscribe to both? For those who
subscribe to both, splitting wouldn't be an improvement.
I doubt that the name of the current list is actually a big problem,
because no matter what the name is, you'll find out about the list by
reading a blurb about it somewhere, which will explain why it's named
this way. Those who are off-put because they hate Perl are going to
probably not like the content of the discussion either, because it will
constantly come up.
Again, I'm not dead-set against it--I just don't think it would improve
anything.
JEff
Simon Glover
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Jeff Clites wrote:
> On Nov 17, 2003, at 11:22 AM, Melvin Smith wrote:
>
> > In the past couple of years we've seen several sub-projects pop-up
> > and subsequently fizzle out (maybe due to Parrot slow
> > progress or maybe due to lack of critical mass).
> >
> > I propose creating 'parrot-compilers' as a general
> > purpose list for any and all language development
> ...
>
> So I'll be one of the few nay-sayers. I'm not definitely against it,
> but here are two counter-arguments:
>
> 2) Forking a list almost always leads to an increase of messages of the
> form "you should be asking this on the other list...", and/or of
> cross-posting, neither of which is very interesting to deal with. I'm
> of the opinion that unless traffic is unmanageable, fewer lists is
> better. So I think a fair question to ask is: How many people currently
> subscribed to this list would not subscribe to both? For those who
> subscribe to both, splitting wouldn't be an improvement.
Well, I'm currently subscribed to perl6-internals but probably would not
subscribe to parrot-compilers (since I don't currently have time to learn
enough to be able to usefully contribute).
Simon
Sterling Hughes
dedicated to helping people (like me) write compilers for parrot,
whereas (in my understanding), perl6-internals@ is really about the
development of the vm itself (I would subscribe to both). I see
parrot-compilers@ as opening up more questions from people struggling
with the current apis than perl6-internals@ - at least I'll post more. :)
-Sterling
Jeff Clites
> The reason I think parrot-compilers would be useful, is that its
> dedicated to helping people (like me) write compilers for parrot,
> whereas (in my understanding), perl6-internals@ is really about the
> development of the vm itself (I would subscribe to both). I see
> parrot-compilers@ as opening up more questions from people struggling
> with the current apis than perl6-internals@ - at least I'll post more.
> :)
Okay, fair enough--I could see how currently people might think
compiler-development questions are off-topic.
JEff
Ulf Wendel
> The reason I think parrot-compilers would be useful, is that its
> dedicated to helping people (like me) write compilers for parrot,
> whereas (in my understanding), perl6-internals@ is really about the
> development of the vm itself (I would subscribe to both). I see
> parrot-compilers@ as opening up more questions from people struggling
> with the current apis than perl6-internals@ - at least I'll post more. :)
I've been silently reading this lists for some weeks now and I don't see
the need to introduce a new list. A wide area of questions seems to be
welcome and get's answered on this list. It's very comfortable to have
just one mailinglist for all questions.
At this (still) early stage of the project one mailinglist seems to be a
good way of communication. As long as the traffic is as low as now I
consider it as helpful for vm designers to read the api users questions
on the same list as it's helpful for api users to watch vm design decisions.
However, I'm just a silent reader and I'd subscribe to both the new list
as well in case it appears. Maybe you should start bombing this list
with api questions so that there's a strong reason to split: traffic ;-).
Ulf
Piers Cawley
As long as it still gets delivered to perl6-all and gets traffic, I'll
summarize it happily. I can usually understand the compiler writer's
issues with Parrot where the full internals stuff leaves my head
spinning so I'd be sorry if you all went off somewhere and I wasn't
writing summaries.