Talk:Parrot virtual machine

message: How many points of focus are required before something is unfocused ?
*focused on license compatibility (Artistic License 2.0), 
*platform compatibility across a broad array of systems, 
*processor architectures compatibility across most modern processors, 
*speed of execution, 
*small size (around 700k depending on platform), 
*being flexible enough to handle the varying demands of Perl, and most, if not all, other modern dynamic languages. 
*improving introspection, debugger capabilities, and 
*compile-time semantic modulation.
Glover (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Brainfuck? ;) porges 07:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus 

message: Is anyone else severely bothered by the following statement?
:The developers see it as an advantage of the Parrot machine that it has registers, and therefore more closely resembles an actual hardware design, allowing the vast literature on compiler optimization to be used generating code for the Parrot virtual machine so that it will run bytecode at speeds closer to compiled languages like C.
While a register-based bytecode would be faster if executed by an interpreter on a machine that had sufficient registers, the compiled code (once compiled by a JIT compiler) shouldn't be any faster, right? And wouldn't this make the JIT compiler's job of producing good code harder?
-- Steve3003 (Oct 11, 2006)
:Are you asking what we think in general, or what can be cited in the article? Keep in mind that the former constitutes original research, where the existing text is simply citing the documentation that is available. We could, I imagine, debate the pros and cons of the design endlessly, but little of that would be encyclopedic. Now, if someone has demonstrated that these assertions are incorrect or sub-optimal, and can be cited from a reliable source, we should certainly cite their work. -Harmil 08:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Register-Based Bytecode 

message: As of Feb. 10, 2008, googling "ruby parrot" only brings up videos of a parrot named Ruby who has a particularly dirty mouth.  The only project I've been able to find, Cardinal (http://cardinal2.rubyforge.org/), seems to be dead as well.  It seems like this sentence (and possible the entire "Possible future languages and projects" section) should be taken out. Wolever (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cardinal is not dead at all, it simply moved from rubyforge to the offical parrot repo. -- FF-Wonko T•C 06:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "There is strong interest in parts of the Ruby community" 

message: This page currently lists a rather optimistic 20 "actively maintained" languages, and a further 18 "inactive" ones. The official Parrot site, used as one of the references, currently lists only 3; the others (and many more) are still on the wiki page but that page has changed only by three characters since 2011 so its definition of "active" is pretty dubious. Indeed, I clicked through to the projects for Cardinal (Ruby support) and Pipp (PHP support), and see several years since development. Even the lua project linked directly from the Parrot site has no modifications since 2012; maybe they just got it perfect already?
So, I think the idea of "active languages" on this page needs a rather major rethink, and the "inactive" list could easily just become a web directory of "people who've played around with the toolkit". Maybe ditch the list altogether, and have a couple of sentences mentioning that languages other than Perl6 have targeted Parrot, not seen wide adoption? (But then, we're back in the definition game: we can't reference a lack of adoption any easier than we can reference "active maintenance"...) - IMSoP (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello!  IMHO, the whole  section should be converted into some more prose for the  section; that prose would list a few major languages as examples, using this web page as a reference.  Speaking or another reference, wikis in general aren't considered reliable sources, and this one in particular doesn't seem to be maintained while the whole point of such lists is regular maintenance.  That's as much as we can do, to follow the references. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining "active" languages (and activeness of Parrot itself) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Parrot virtual machine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131031061118/http://www.parrotblog.org/2008/06/announcing-parrot-foundation.html to http://www.parrotblog.org/2008/06/announcing-parrot-foundation.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090509161210/http://docs.parrot.org:80/parrot/latest/html/docs/book/ch04_compiler_tools.pod.html to http://docs.parrot.org/parrot/latest/html/docs/book/ch04_compiler_tools.pod.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090720034439/http://docs.parrot.org:80/parrot/latest/html/docs/book/ch03_pir.pod.html to http://docs.parrot.org/parrot/latest/html/docs/book/ch03_pir.pod.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: one of the archived versions, we need the early one that works. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified