From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2002-08-09T06:48:06+09:00
Subject: Rite vs Parrot: rationale?


I'm been looking for the rationale of implementing Ruby's own bytecode
engine (Rite) instead of using Parrot.

Here's a summary of the information I've found:

[18657]  (Jul 2001): first reference to Rite, 100% vapourware.
[34594]  (23 Feb): <<_EOF_
Rite will have some kind of VM.  It would NOT be Parrot, but I hope I
can prepare backend API that makes Parrot backend possible.

							matz.
_EOF_
It seems no development had started as of Feb 2002.
[41360] (30 May): Rite still vapourware, the API will change
[41522] (01 Jun): Rite's development is going "pretty slow" :)
[43967] (08 Jul): there's a prototype implementation however
  --> it's been done between in June...
[45991] (02 Aug): its C API will not be compatible with the one in 
	1.6 & 1.7 (to be 1.8)

We can feel Rite is beginning to become something, but I have been
unable to find the rationale for some of the mayor design decisions
already taken; particularly the reasons behind [34594] (which was
acknowledged by Dan Sugalski as being correct without any further
explanation).

Could someone please point me to the pertinent sources? Is there
anything like the Perl Design Documents (PDDS) included in Parrot's
source?

Thanx
-- 
 _           _                             
| |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __  
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ 
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
	Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com
  
Sex, Drugs & Linux Rules
	-- MaDsen Wikholm, mwikholm@at8.abo.fi