News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Nimrod by Example. Parent comment

Re:Nimrod by Example by def- on Thursday July 17, 2014 @02:04PM (#8049122)
In Nimrod it's easy to piggyback on C, which has the most extensive ecosystem of all languages.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nimrod by Example by sanderjd on Thursday July 17, 2014 @03:12PM (#8049545)
But C's ecosystem is so extensive that everybody can piggyback on it (with varying levels of ceremony).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nimrod by Example by tdees40 on Thursday July 17, 2014 @03:25PM (#8049642)
See CPython, Haskell, C++....
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nimrod by Example by sitkack on Thursday July 17, 2014 @10:36PM (#8051395)
This might already exist, but if Nimrod could piggy back on Javascript (Node), Python and Ruby for libraries this would be huge. Native glue.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nimrod by Example by ascent on Friday July 18, 2014 @07:07PM (#8056046)
This is what Perl6 with Parrot VM aim for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrot_virtual_machine

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nimrod by Example by Pacabel on Saturday July 19, 2014 @07:47PM (#8059140)
I don't think that we can really consider Perl 6 and Parrot to be anything but abysmal failures at this point. The people developing and advocating for them have had many years now to product something that's even minimally usable, and we just haven't seen that happen.

Writing traditional compilers and interpreters, or emitting C, or targeting LLVM have all proven to be good ways of getting production-grade programming language implementations created and usable quickly. Messing around with Parrot has never resulted in anything useful.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nimrod by Example by chromatic on Saturday July 19, 2014 @10:07PM (#8059366)
That was the goal, but Parrot failed to meet that goal and P6 is years away from being usable.
[ Parent | on HN ]