A vision for Parrot

[Wojciech Kocjan]

Frodo Morris wrote:
>> What advantage would this have over putting a #! line in the bytecode?
> Faster, better, cheaper.
> Imagine if parrot could understand all interpreted code.  Why not leave 
> it running, so that any Perl/Python/Tcl/Ruby/Java/sh/BASIC/whatever code 
> can get to it immediately?  A parrotd exec would consist of: "Run this." 
>  "OK".  A #! consists of "Does this file exist?"  "Yes."  "Does it 
> work?"  "Yes."  "OK, run this."  "OK".  I contend that a properly set up 
> parrotd *should* be faster than the equivalent "each language set up 
> separately" environment.

But not quite more secure. Imagine userX running a script that does 
something nasty - like replace some command and then wait for root to 
call it. This was a very simple example, since probably parrot would 
recreate interpreters per script, but I guess it still could be possible 
since it would be the same process...

I guess it's a lot safer to just fork as it is now.

-- 
WK                                (written at Stardate 56849.3)

"Data typing is an illusion. Everything is a sequence of bytes."
                                                              -Todd Coram