Dan Sugalski wrote:
Ignoring parrot, I'll point you at some of the Scheme and Smalltalk setups. (And you'd be hard-pressed to find something to beat smalltalk for runtime dynamism)
Not on python-dev.
If you want to bet
Just show me the code.
I'll put up $10 and a round of beer (or other beverage of your choice) at OSCON 2004 for all the python labs & zope folks that says parrot beats the current python interpreter when running all the python benchmark suite programs (that don't depend on extensions written in C, since we're shooting for pure engine performance) from bytecode. Game?
If you're talking about simple stuff like pystone, people have already done *interpreters* that can run that kind of bench- mark 5-25 times faster than CPython. All it takes is a fast GC, call-site caching, some low-overhead primitives, and a fast calling mechanism. But if you want to run real Python programs, you still have to solve all the hard problems. Judging from the Parrot material I've seen, it's not obvious that you're even aware of what they are. After all, if you know how to solve them, wouldn't it be easier to tell us what you've done (or plan to do), instead of pointing to non-Parrot implementations of non-Python languages done by others? But let's hope I'm wrong. The only way to *prove* me wrong is to ship the code. </F>