Prothon IS different inside

Several people have suggested looking at Parrot recently including the guy
doing Pie-Thon on Parrot.  This got me to thinking that I could save a lot
of work by using Parrot instead of APR and taking advantage of their efforts
to implement libraries.  No one is helping me with the core development of
Prothon after 8 months of work.

When I took a look at Parrot I was shocked at how much it (and I assume
Perl) is like Python.  I guess everyone has a conventional wisdom about how
interpreted languages are supposed to be implemented and work except me.
Prothon is nothing like the others on the inside even though it is so
similar on the outside.

Perl and Python have architectures very much hard-wired to look like the
hardware they run on.  They have instructions that are expansions of that
hardware model.  They have hard-wired types like ints, floats, and strings
and then add objects on top of that as an afterthought.  Prothon has only
objects and nothing else.

I can't imagine porting Prothon to any of these interpreters.  I wouldn't
know what to do with all the hard-wired type-centered bytecodes.  The
bytecodes used by Prothon would be a small subset and they would be an
irregular fit.

Am I crazy?  Is my object-oriented interpreter doomed because it is so out
of the mainstream?