It’s just data

make Parrot

apt-get install g++ icu make
cvs -d :pserver:anonymous@cvs.perl.org:/cvs/public login
cvs -d :pserver:anonymous@cvs.perl.org:/cvs/public co parrot
cd parrot
perl Configure.pl --cxx=g++
make
make test

Watching the messages go by, you see good programming practice, like enabling all warnings with -Wall, preceded with harmless inanity like defining a library directory named arry.  Not to be outdone, this too is preceded by a define of an_Sugalski.

All tests successful, 4 tests and 52 subtests skipped.
Files=122, Tests=1864, 174 wallclock secs (121.09 cusr + 37.77 csys = 158.86 CPU)

Concrete evidence of test-driven development is a real confidence builder.  As is the use of the International Components for Unicode library.

The RESPONSIBLE_PARTIES file contains a request soliciting volunteers for Garbage Collector.  Parrot contains a gc_ims (Incremental mark and sweep) garbage collection implementation, so I guess the responsible party just doesn't want to fess up.

I programmed for a decade in 370 assembler.  I have studied the Java byte codes.  I was a member of the ECMA committee which standardized the CLI.

With this background, Parrot feels distinctly alien.  In the worlds that I am familiar with, every bit in an instruction is a precious thing, and opcodes in particular are hoarded and doled out extremely sparingly.

By contrast, in Parrot, there is an opcode for factorial.

Sampling the test cases, they appear to be all written in Perl5.  Upon closer inspection, the Perl5 is just a thin wrapper for either Parrott assembly code or C/C++ code and expected results.  Some of the documentation (and by this, I mean the comments inside the test cases themselves) is written in LISP.  Apparently, one needs to be a polymath to participate or even follow along.

The almost, but not-quite, successful pie-thon code is included too.  Apparently, the early attempts were to convert the Python byte codes to Parrot byte codes, but based on the results to date, a newer effort has been spawned trying to start earlier in the process with the Python AST, which contains more metadata.

While the efforts to integrate Python and Parrot seem to be driven by the Parrot team, a number of the developers of PHP seem interested.

There even seems to be aspirations of running Parrot on top of the JVM/.Net.


FYI:
My procedure was slightly different (gentoo-ppc):

gcc (3.4.1), make and icu already installed
<cvs stuff>
perl Configure.pl
make
make test

The result in a PowerPC G4 1GHz:

All tests successful, 4 tests and 52 subtests skipped.
Files=122, Tests=1864, 305 wallclock secs (217.81 cusr + 52.63 csys = 270.44 CPU)

I'm not sure how they compare, as I don't know your CPU. But it is very reassuring that it compiles and runs the tests exactly as your machine (I'm guessing you're speaking Intel)

Posted by Santiago Gala at

well, the point is that parrot has an extensible opcode system, so you can add whatever you want..

Anyway you're forgetting the ruby over parrot implemntation, that recently released a 0.1 version (cardinal.rubyforge.org)

Posted by verbat at

ActiveState - Dynamic Languages-ready for the next challenges, by design

ActiveState - Dynamic Languages-ready for the next challenges, by design is quite an interesting paper on Python, Perl etc. This follows nicely from my earlier post. IMHO it would be good if Python development were concentrated in 3 areas:...

Excerpt from 42 at

Parrot in the wild

Good to see people are trying out Parrot and posting about it: Sam Ruby: make Parrot...... [more]

Trackback from Mícheál Ó Foghlú's Weblog

at

Sam Ruby: make Parrot

[link]...

Excerpt from del.icio.us/tag/python at

If you are need the any window10 problem go this website . because this is the mind blowing uses and we are join a long time this website. more arterial are read one this website.when you are working to window10 and you are need the any help go this website.

Posted by windows 10 customer support at

Add your comment