[ruby-talk:04276] Re: Ruby.next, Perl6, Python 3000, Tcl++, etc. -- Any opportunities for common implementation code?

In article <8lvfl3$ck3$[e-mail]>,
Conrad Schneiker <[e-mail]> wrote:
			.
			.
			.
>Given that Perl6 looks like it will be the next big rewrite to occur in the
>Perl, Ruby, Python, Tcl, etc., range of languages, would it be possible to
>do this in such a way that there could be a common core of libraries that
>could be used by the next generation of all of these languages? Would a
>common Unicode regular expression processing library be possible? I think
>everyone who isn't using mark and sweep garbage collection will want to
>eventually do so, so maybe there is something here that could also be
>factored out into a common implementation library. Maybe likewise for
>bytecode generation and packaging programs into single self-contained
>executables.
>
>Would a common generalized interface for doing C-extensions be feasible to
>do in a way that would be mutually satisfactory to Perl6, Ruby.next, and
>Python 3000? This would further make possible for language-specific modules
>to share their underlying C code
>
>Such a development might have other interesting synergies. For example, Tk
>development seems to have preceeded at a snail's pace for the last several
>year. If Tk provided an interface following a new standard common extension
>mechanism, perhaps more of the effort that has previously gone into
><whatever>/Tk or <whatever>/<non-Tk-portable-GUIs> would go into Tk itself,
>to everyone's mutual benefit.
>
>I'm not sure if any of the above ideas are feasible and desirable, but if
>anyone can think of some way to render them such, we have a brief window of
>opportunity that may not reoccur for many years. For convenience of
>reference, we might call such a system "osl.net" (for open source
>languages). Some organizations such as O'Reilly and ActiveState already have
>overlapping interests in Perl and Python, and so might have some natural
>interest in promoting osl.net, if it were feasible.
>
>Conrad
>
>

The questions are apt.  To a surprising extent, the answer
to grand unification attempts is "no", as Guido explains
in <URL:http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=652175964>.

HOWEVER, I am *very* optimistic about less lofty but more
focused attempts to co-operate.  Tk's a good example.  Even
without "big" solutions, it'd be a great thing for Rubyists,
Pythonians, and so on all to join in the TkGS design rewrite,
as well as contribute new widgets, correct OS-specific
blemishes, and do other such deeds for the common good.  The
Tcl maintenance organization is in the middle of reorganizing
to make it more feasible for "outsiders" to join in.  I see
benefits to all the languages from this kind of co-operation.
Similarly, even if Perl and Python can't share RE implementa-
tations at an object-code level, at least their maintainers
can talk together and solve problems with only half the ef-
fort.

I'm collecting notes on these subjects at
<URL:http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/comp.lang.misc/polyglot.html>,
among other places.
-- 

Cameron Laird <[e-mail]>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal:  http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html