From: Mark <msparshatt@...>
Date: 2004-02-21T03:09:28+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby to Parrot compiler

Phil Tomson wrote:

>Mark <msparshatt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<4035121F.6040308@yahoo.co.uk>...
>  
>
>>Is there anyone working on a compiler for compiling Ruby code to work on 
>>parrot?
>>
>>The latest effort Cardinal seemed to die off before it got started, 
>>presumably due to the immaturity of Parrot.
>>
>>However version 0.1.0 of Parrot is set to be released on the 29th of 
>>this month wich should include support for objects, so this seems to be 
>>the ideal time to get a compiler project started up.
>>    
>>
>
>So they're promising object support at the end of the month?  I've
>heard this for almost two years now.  I'll believe it when I see it.
>
>  
>
AFAIK, The spec for the object support has been written and Dan has 
promised to check a basic implementation in to the source tree in time 
for the feature freeze monday.

>>Cardinal was set up on Savannah but this seems to be a perfect project 
>>to start up on Rubyforge.
>>
>>Is anyone else interested in this?
>>
>>    
>>
> 
>I'm very interested in this.  I was the one who setup the project at
>Savannah (now I don't even know where I put the passwords for it, it's
>been so long ago).  I definately want to see a Ruby front-end for
>Parrot.  Back when I started the project I wasn't working.  Since then
>I've been going to grad school and more recently I've gotten a job and
>I'm still going to grad school so I really don't have a lot of time to
>commit to this.
>
>Please feel free start a Cardinal project on Rubyforge.  Even if
>Object support in Parrot doesn't come out this month, it will
>_eventually_ happen(at least I hope so :).  In the meantime there are
>lots of other tasks that could be done.  The foremost being that we
>need a good parser for Ruby (Cardinal isn't the only project that
>needs this).  I just saw another post that mentioned Ripper again. 
>Might be worth a try.  There's also Ruth.  At any rate, I think the
>main focus right now needs to be on the frontend until the backend
>issues (object support in Parrot) are ironed out.
>
>  
>
I've tried out Ripper and it seems to be very close to what we need for 
a front end. Though I'll also take a look at Ruth.

There are AFAIK at least two projects that convert Ruby code into 
bytecode, I wonder how easy it would be to modify them so they emit 
parrot bytecode? I admit I'm not clear about how they work.

I agree that the front end is the best place to start working on the 
project.

--
Mark Sparshatt