Jump to content

Talk:Pugs (compiler)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Accuracy unclear

[edit]

From the article:

Originally there was hope that the huge Pugs test suite would form the basis of the actual Perl 6 test suite, but now it looks more like Pugs itself will form the basis of the actual Perl 6, so the point is a bit moot.

Is this really true? I was under the impression that Perl6 is intended to be written in Perl6, with Pugs being intended by its own developers to do no more than bootstrap the first build of the final Perl6 Perl6. If that's what the statement in the article means, it needs clarifying; if it means that Pugs will actually replace the Perl6 Perl6, then I'd say a reference would be in order, since there's no mention of any such intention on any of the linked sites. — Haeleth Talk 11:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think I wrote the above sentence, when this article was but a young thing. I can't give any definitive reference unfortunately. I'm certainly not saying anyone expects Perl 6 to be written in anything other than Perl 6; however the impression I've got is that Pugs is going places in its own right, and will gradually be converted from Haskell to Perl 6 rather than just acting as a bootstrap for some other implementation of Perl 6. Feel free to delete it if you think such speculation is out of place - you're probably right!

Adetaylor 20:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The final milestone of Pugs is self-hosting, that is, translating all the compiler components into Perl 6. At that point of time, if there is no other Perl 6 implementations around, it might be possible that Pugs is simply renamed to Perl 6 (see EGCS); if there is already another self-hosting Perl 6 implementation, then Pugs would retain its name, but would still be a self-hosting compiler. audreyt 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Parrot fit into this? Will Pugs/Perl6 be producing Parrot bytecode? Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 14:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a lurker, but my understanding is that Parrot would be on even footing with any other target. That is, Pugs is very much a compiler in the GCC/EGCS sense - if there is a backend which targets Parrot, and the result of compiling to Parrot passes the Perl 6 tests, then Pugs supports Parrot and Parrot can run Perl 6. However, once Pugs can target Perl 6 and any working VM (or even a non-virtual machine target like x86), and once Perl 6 has been written in Perl 6, Pugs can run that (Perl 6 in Perl 6) on the working VM and that will be a Perl 6 system which could then compile itself. Whether that working VM is ghc running Haskel, the perl 5 runtime running perl 5 code, Parrot running PIR, Mozilla running JavaScript, .net running Visual Basic, llvm running C, gcc compiling C, Turbo Pascal compiling Pascal, some Forth engine, Common Lisp, Prolog, x86 assembler, or some DNA-based implementation of a Turing Machine (I saw it in Scientific American!), doesn't really matter.
The point of the Parrot project is to create a VM which is designed around the trade-offs associated with Perl-like languages, of which there are many, such as Ruby, Python, tcl/tk, PHP, and BASIC. These languages all presume the VM will handle memory management, most of them provide for automatic type coercian, and they all tend to support introspection.
Although the Parrot and Perl 6 projects started from the same place, it looks to me like they are diverging in a useful way. The Perl 6 project is developing a language standard (the Perl 6 test suite), and it is likely that the project will produce an implementation written in Perl 6. The Parrot project is developing a VM which many languages could share, allowing those languages to all run anywhere the Parrot VM has been ported to, and even providing some mechanisms by which those languages can "transparently" and "automatically" inter-operate. (I put these terms in quotes because there is a lot of hand-waving involved in bringing these promises to fruition.)
So in summary, Parrot is its own thing (a nifty VM for running dynamic languages), Perl 6 is its own thing (a language specification), and Pugs is its own thing (a compiler for Perl 6 with many targets, including Parrot).
Crag 19:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed incorrect sentence re "official perl 6"

[edit]
Due to licensing and concerns about the lack of copyright assignments from contributors, it is unlikely that The Perl Foundation will bless Pugs as the official implementation of Perl 6.

Perl 6 official policy is "unlike how it was with Perl 5, none of these projects is designed to be the Official Perl. Perl 6 is anything that passes the official test suite."[1](S01, n1v5, 1 Nob 2006) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.117.127 (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pugs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 February 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Consensus is to move the page. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 22:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Pugs → Pugs (programming) – People searching "pugs" are more likely to be looking for the article pug. This is already listed as the primary use on pug (disambiguation), where this page should redirect. Olidog (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Pugs" in books In ictu oculi (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is not evidence that someone searching for an article about the pug breed would use the plural form. Evidence to the contrary is that the Dachshunds and Bulldogs redirects to Dachshund and Bulldog get practically no action [2] indicating that almost nobody enters Dachshunds or Bulldogs when they are searching for the Dachshund or Bulldog article. So it follows that about as few would enter "pugs" when searching for the Pug article - practically none. Note that the current Pugs article about the compiler/interpreter gets about 10 times as many hits as Dachshunds does and five times as many as Bulldogs does (and Pug, Bulldog and Dachshund are remarkably close to equal). That's strong evidence that the current article at Pugs is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Pugs. It's about as strong as such evidence can be. --В²C ☎ 17:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Pppery 01:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As a rule, the plural should always redirect to the singular. People search on plurals. People link to plurals. Have a look at the incoming links. All the article incoming links are to the dog, pugs. See how pugs looks like pugs? That is insufficient difference. All the incoming links wanting the programming language are coming in via the redirect "Pugs (programming) (redirect page)". This incoming links could be fixed, but a better fix it to fix the locations to what is logically expected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per reasoning in above comments. Randy Kryn 14:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per B2C. Specifically, there is no rule that the plural should always redirect to the singular—on the contrary, WP:PLURALPT states that they should be considered on case-by-case basis: The relationship between a singular and its plural is important, but not the only consideration. Because readers and editors are used to seeing titles at the singular form, and can be expected to search for them/link to them in the singular form, the intentional use of a plural form by a reader or editor can be evidence that a separate primary topic exists at the plural form. Now, we can debate whether Pug or Pugs (programming) is the primary topic for "Pugs", but I haven't seen enough evidence for the former, above, and B2C provided substantial evidence for the latter. No such user (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per SmokeyJoe. This would help the encyclopedia greatly by having people who are looking for dogs no getting sent to a page about software. I would recommend the closer go through the links with AWB or manually and check to make sure that the links go to the correct article. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems obvious that many people searching for the well known dog breed would search for it as "Pugs" in the same manner they might for Whippets, Hounds and Labradors. This is especially so given the incoming link and pageview evidence above that suggests many readers are currently being misdirected. Pugs should redirect to the dog with a hat note to the programming language.--Cúchullain t/c 14:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pugs (programming). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pugs (programming). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pugs_(compiler)&oldid=1207173833"