Re: Prothon IS different inside

Joe Mason wrote:

>> Maybe it is possible to ignore Parrots built-in types, which are for
>> Perl, and just use the objects. That must be the plan for Python.
>> The int, float, and string are there for future optimizations, if
>> desired.
>
> Well, you have to use them when writing the object internals.
> Otherwise, what actual Parrot asembly instructions do you emit while
> adding two int objects?  You just wouldn't map them to real Prothon
> types like you would with objects.

Yes, I would be forced to use the Java type model of non-objects and
objects.  I would have to emulate my flexible objects by pairing objects and
non-objects.  This would make putting attributes on integers and other
normally orthogonal things a bit of a pain.  In other words every time I
load an Int object into an Object register I would have to load a real int
register also.

In Prothon my object structure just has one bit of overhead to keep track of
whether an Int needs attributes.  In Parrot, I wouldn't have that bit in a
normal int, so I would have to drag around an entire object with the int in
order to maintain the same flexibility.  I guess I need to learn more about
how flexible their objects are before I bitch too much more.

It will be interesting to see how the Parrot/Python speed competition goes
in a few weeks.  That will make a difference to my interest level.