[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Targeting the Lua VM
- From: KHMan <keinhong@...>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:30:38 +0800
> KHMan wrote:
> I think CLR and Parrot already solves the multiple scripting
> language problem in a more practical way.
> You think? This Idiotism? The history CLR is aggravated theft, w/o
> transplantability. And now writing DotGnu&Mono. So it`s blunt way, using
> bad technology^ in your work.
Calm down, XenoLiz, whoever you are. They are just examples of
language platforms that are probably more suitable for multiple
languages on the front end portion. I am neutral about them,
technology-wise. Most of us are fully aware of "embrace, extend
and extinguish" but here, we are talking about technology. On this
list, the discussions are almost always very civil and rational,
so I always assume everyone is mature enough to decide on their
own whether or not to use these technologies.
Consider it an academic exercise. By your rants, you are just
wasting everyone's time. Let us instead have a more meaningful
discussion on this list. Well then, Java is a pretty complete
platform too, but of course, they are all pretty big. In the end,
it is a matter of how much of a language one wants to implement. I
don't think anyone can avoid language subsets, they are the
necessary first steps if one wants to support a second language on
the Lua backend. I don't think discussions are that important --
working code is tens of times more valuable. What's more
meaningful would be to code something and then see the response of
the community. It might well end up as an academic exercise.
> After fixing up the Lua VM to implement various languages
> efficiently, you'd probably end
> up with something like CLR or Parrot. So, why reinvent the wheel?
> If we must serve MS & Perl, then Yes it is. You see Parrot VM? It is
> .... very, vary ... bad & JIT :)
I don't understand you. Can you please write better English? Thank
you. Clarity in speaking and thinking will be good for you and for
everyone who choose to listen to you. I do wish to understand what
you are trying to say.
> Yes, using one VM for all langs impossible, only simple VM langs may be
> compile to Lua, and this work may do Compiler.
> If designer the Lua VM, so only for *optimizing*^ Lua: optimum, faster,
> usable & transplantability.
> So if something necessary, than Lua write on C++, w/o GC, with simple
> boost interface to C++ game code.
Of course, for production work, the usual methods are probably the
best way to go. No one disputes that. So, XenoLiz, please then,
consider the "multi-language mixing together on Lua scenario" as
an academic exercise. I hope you can then try to contribute
constructively and meaningfully to this discussion. And oh,
experienced list participants almost always clearly identify
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia