There was some Lorito discussion, which is interesting for me. But actually, most of the discussion about Lorito was about the announcement that by Parrot 3.3, which lands in April, we will have a spec and initial implementation of Lorito. The team, to my recollection, is going to be cotto, dukeleto, bacek and myself. There was also come clarification between the terms M0 and Lorito. M0 being the opcode set and bare minimum, and Lorito being the whole project.
But this blog posting isn't about Lorito. It's about NQP. The major discussion that took place during PDS was the suitability of the new NQP being included as a core component of Parrot. This discussion was interesting for me since there were good points on each side.
Before I go any farther, let me explain what's happening to NQP. pmichaud explains the change in detail at http://irclog.perlgeek.de/parrotsketch/2011-01-29#i_3232428, but the quick version of it is that NQP is going to become multi-backend. It will support output to Parrot, JVM and CLI. It was made clear that it may not be able to support all VM backends the same, some features that Parrot gives naturally will be difficult in JVM, for example. But, the goal is to make Rakudo, and anyone using NQP, to be able to retarget to another platform with relative ease. On the surface, this appears to be a noble goal and something Parrot would be interested in. I'm going to admit, it's appealing. But, looking deeper under the surface, and you'll find some deep issues. The big issue is maintenance cost. This may not seem like much, since it's the NQP team that will be maintaining the code, but as long as NQP is a core component, included with Parrot, the Parrot team has a responsibility to it. It's like when I was at college, students always wanted the IT department to install AIM on all the lab computers, since it always gets installed anyways. What few people seem to realize is that by doing that, IT is taking some form of responsibility for the installation. Students are more apt to go to IT first to resolve an issue with AIM. There's a cost for that amount of support tickets. When AIM is installed by IT, the support is implied at that point. Same with Parrot, if JVM support is there in the Parrot core, support for it is implied by it's existence. In this regard, I agree, including the new NQP, alternate backends and all, is not what Parrot should do.
The issue isn't so cut and dry to say that NQP should leave the nest because it supports multiple backends. The reality is that Parrot needs a tool like NQP. People that want to start developing and targeting Parrot need a tool that can get them started fast. That's also not to say that there should be one true tool to use, there should be multiple to fit people's needs. But Parrot needs a default, and it's something that Parrot needs to support.
In the PDS aftermath, there were a few reasonable options brought up.
- Include the new NQP, but only include the "use parrot;" equivalent functionality. This seems to be the option that is in favor right now.
- Continue to use NQP-rx, which is what is currently supported. Personally, I don't like this option, since it means that Parrot will diverge from NQP, which will be difficult for HLL writers to transfer from NQP-rx to NQP.
- Use another, existing tool, something like Winxed. Actually, the more I look at winxed, I don't doubt it could fit the bill.
- Create a brand new tool. Feasible, but wouldn't happen anytime soon. Although my fear is that it'd end up being something unpleasant to work with like PASM/PIR. That fear is probably unfounded, but it's a concern none the less.
So, in the end, the question I ask myself is, what do I think Parrot should do? Personally, I think option 3 and 1 are the most reasonable options, and failing that, option 4. Option 2 just shouldn't be an option in my opinion, too many problems could and would arise from having two divergent languages. I do think option 3 is the most desirable, since that way we can support HLL writers out of box, but they still have options. I understand the cost to do that, and at that point, I concede that option 1 is probably, at the very least short term, the option that should be persuaded.
But that's just my opinion.