By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
439,957 Members | 2,017 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 439,957 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Python/Parrot still alive?

P: n/a
Is there going to be a python parrot release. I looking on the web and
seeing stuff, stilly pending. That would be cool to see application
servers, via python(I think that could only be with a virtual machine).
Could be wrong of course.

Jul 18 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
9 Replies


P: n/a
Berlin Brown wrote:
Is there going to be a python parrot release. I looking on the web and
seeing stuff, stilly pending. That would be cool to see application
servers, via python(I think that could only be with a virtual machine).
Could be wrong of course.


If you believe that application servers require Parrot because it
has a virtual machine, you are certainly wrong:
- Python does have a virtual machine even without Parrot.
- Applications servers do not fundamentally require virtual
machines.

Regards,
Martin

Jul 18 '05 #2

P: n/a
Martin v. Lwis wrote:
...

If you believe that application servers require Parrot because it
has a virtual machine, you are certainly wrong:
- Python does have a virtual machine even without Parrot.
- Applications servers do not fundamentally require virtual
machines.


It is interesting how interpreters have been rebranded as "virtual
machines." Python people still use the word "interpreter" and that is
probably not great from a marketing point of view.

Paul Prescod

Jul 18 '05 #3

P: n/a
Paul Prescod wrote:
It is interesting how interpreters have been rebranded as "virtual
machines." Python people still use the word "interpreter" and that is
probably not great from a marketing point of view.


I personally make a distinction between an interpreter and a virtual
machine. A virtual machine is one that has a "machine code", i.e. a
set of abstract instructions, operating on machine state. In Python,
the abstract set of instructions is the Python byte code, and the
abstract state is the collection of frame objects, etc.

Some interpreters don't have virtual machines, e.g. Tcl did not
have one until Tcl 8 or so. OTOH, not all virtual machines are
interpreted, e.g. MS .NET is always compiled to native code
("just in time" :-) instead of being interpreted.

Regards,
Martin

Jul 18 '05 #4

P: n/a
"Martin v. Lwis" <ma****@v.loewis.de> wrote in message news:<c0*************@news.t-online.com>...
Some interpreters don't have virtual machines, e.g. Tcl did not
have one until Tcl 8 or so. OTOH, not all virtual machines are


So Ruby is an interpreter and not a virutal machine ?
Jul 18 '05 #5

P: n/a
Lothar Scholz wrote:
Some interpreters don't have virtual machines, e.g. Tcl did not
have one until Tcl 8 or so. OTOH, not all virtual machines are

So Ruby is an interpreter and not a virutal machine ?


I don't know how Ruby is implemented.

On the language level, there are not interpreted or compiled
languages - there are only interpreters and compilers, and they
are on the level of language implementation. So your question
would be only valid for "Ruby 1.8.1" or some other specific
version. However, I could not answer the question for any Ruby
version.

Regards,
Martin

Jul 18 '05 #6

P: n/a
Lothar Scholz wrote:

"Martin v. Lwis" <ma****@v.loewis.de> wrote in message news:<c0*************@news.t-online.com>...
Some interpreters don't have virtual machines, e.g. Tcl did not
have one until Tcl 8 or so. OTOH, not all virtual machines are


So Ruby is an interpreter and not a virutal machine ?


Does Ruby have a "byte code" such as Python and Java have?
Jul 18 '05 #7

P: n/a
Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp.com> wrote in message news:<40***************@engcorp.com>...
Lothar Scholz wrote:

"Martin v. Lwis" <ma****@v.loewis.de> wrote in message news:<c0*************@news.t-online.com>...
Some interpreters don't have virtual machines, e.g. Tcl did not
have one until Tcl 8 or so. OTOH, not all virtual machines are


So Ruby is an interpreter and not a virutal machine ?


Does Ruby have a "byte code" such as Python and Java have?


No. It keeps the parse tree in memory and traverse it during
evaluation. Same as all lisp interpreters(?!?!).
Jul 18 '05 #8

P: n/a
ll*****@web.de (Lothar Scholz) wrote in message news:<6e**************************@posting.google. com>...
Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp.com> wrote in message news:<40***************@engcorp.com>...
Lothar Scholz wrote:

"Martin v. Lwis" <ma****@v.loewis.de> wrote in message news:<c0*************@news.t-online.com>...

> Some interpreters don't have virtual machines, e.g. Tcl did not
> have one until Tcl 8 or so. OTOH, not all virtual machines are

So Ruby is an interpreter and not a virutal machine ?


Does Ruby have a "byte code" such as Python and Java have?


No. It keeps the parse tree in memory and traverse it during
evaluation. Same as all lisp interpreters(?!?!).


Definitely not the same as Lisp. In actuality, a Common Lisp
implementation that compiles to bytecode rather than native code is
uncommon; the majority of quality (i.e., complete) implementations
compile to native code.

Jeremy
Jul 18 '05 #9

P: n/a
tw*********@hotmail.com (Jeremy Fincher) writes:
ll*****@web.de (Lothar Scholz) wrote in message news:<6e**************************@posting.google. com>...
Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp.com> wrote in message news:<40***************@engcorp.com>...
Lothar Scholz wrote:
>
> "Martin v. Löwis" <ma****@v.loewis.de> wrote in message news:<c0*************@news.t-online.com>...
>
> > Some interpreters don't have virtual machines, e.g. Tcl did not
> > have one until Tcl 8 or so. OTOH, not all virtual machines are
>
> So Ruby is an interpreter and not a virutal machine ?

Does Ruby have a "byte code" such as Python and Java have?


No. It keeps the parse tree in memory and traverse it during
evaluation. Same as all lisp interpreters(?!?!).


Definitely not the same as Lisp. In actuality, a Common Lisp
implementation that compiles to bytecode rather than native code is
uncommon; the majority of quality (i.e., complete) implementations
compile to native code.


Well, yeah, but I think what happens to stuff you type into the repl
of e.g. CMUCL could be described as traversing the parse tree. CMUCL
has a bytecode compiler and a native compiler *as well*, but I think
you have to ask for them. SBCL (and some others: Corman, MCL)
compiles absolutely everything to native code, I think.

Cheers,
mwh

--
If i don't understand lisp, it would be wise to not bray about
how lisp is stupid or otherwise criticize, because my stupidity
would be archived and open for all in the know to see.
-- Xah, comp.lang.lisp
Jul 18 '05 #10

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.