SPUG: Is Perl for .NET on anyone's radar?

[JD Brennan]

I'll agree with your 3).  If your 2) is representative of
Perl programmers in general, then that would be great.
Your 1) is going to take some more convincing, but if
you can define the "basic grammar" then we could
take a crack at writing an interpreter for it in C#.

I'd really like to do it in such a way that I could
target the JVM as well as the CLR.  J#?   That may
be asking too much.

JD

On 8/22/06, David S. Patterson <david.s.patterson at usa.net> wrote:
>
>  JD,
>
> Sorry, I don't agree with most your assessments on this.  Here's why:
>
> 1)  The basic grammar is simple enough; it's really not much more
> complicated than any shell syntax, in my view.
>
> 2)  The 90/10 rule idea is a matter of opinion.  If I had 90% of perl
> syntax & functionality on .NET I'd be in heaven.  Obviously it would be nice
> to do 100% but perl is over 14 years old and has undergone 'the Swiss Army
> Knife' effect.  We don't have to have all the bells and whistles at the
> beginning.  How about just porting perl 4  -- I'd be happy with that!
>
> 3)  The CPAN complaint is a red herring.  You can't run ANY CPAN code on
> .NET right now!
>
> Well there -- I've vented...  But I'm still Not Happy!!!
>
> -Pat
>
>
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> *Received: *Tue, 22 Aug 2006 01:06:24 PM PDT
> *From: *"JD Brennan" <jazzdev at gmail.com>
> *To: *"David S. Patterson" <david.s.patterson at usa.net>
> *Subject: *Re: SPUG: Is Perl for .NET on anyone's radar?
>
>
> If you're looking for Perl written on top of the CLR, then
> I think that's going to be hard to find.   Because it would
> be hard to do.    Perl is great because it was designed
> to be easy to program in, not to be easy to implement.
> Mostly languages have a regular grammar that's easy
> to implement, like Python, Ruby, JavaScript etc.
>
> There's no JPerl (Perl on top of the Java JVM) either for the
> same reason.  It's fairly hard to write a Perl interpreter.
>
> I've thought about writing JPerl, but the 90/10 rule would
> likely kill it.  Getting the last 10% of the Perl
> syntax to work would be really hard.
>
> Perl programmers probably wouldn't be interested in
> a Perl where only 90% of the Perl syntax worked.
>
> And Perl modules would be a problem too.  How do you
> use a Perl module with a C-based component on top
> of the JVM or the CLR?
>
> Perl programmers probably wouldn't be interested in
> a Perl where a lot of the CPAN modules wouldn't work.
>
> Might be more possible with the CLR.  By using managed
> C maybe you could get Perl embed to talk to the CLR directly.
> I'm not familar with .NET or the CLR, so that's just
> speculation.
>
> JPerl seems destined to failure for the reasons mentioned
> above.  So I'll probably never get around to it.  ;-)
>
> JD
>
> P.S.  Yes, there used to be something called JPerl, but
> it is a JNI wrapper around Perl embed so you can call Perl
> from Java.  It's not a way to write something in Perl that
> can run in a JVM.
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> Seattle Perl Users Group Mailing List
>     POST TO: spug-list at pm.org
> SUBSCRIPTION: http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/spug-list
>    MEETINGS: 3rd Tuesdays
>    WEB PAGE: http://seattleperl.org/
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.pm.org/pipermail/spug-list/attachments/20060822/22b362a2/attachment.html