> Your reasoning is kind of like saying we only need a 6502 and a large bank of ram because, hey, that is turing equivalent, and a modern x86 with the same amount of ram is turing equivalent, so it should be complete.
Yes, this is literally the case, I didn't say it would be easy or that it should be done. Maybe I should have been more clear, but it was just a silly joke, lighten up.
Also, analogging perl and c/c++ style languages to the modern x86 and 6502 is a bit hyperbolic.
If I'm understanding your point correctly, you're saying that dynamic interpretation (via code loading or `eval`) is an important perl feature you want to retain. In a world in which someone was crazy enough to write a perl->rust transpiler, they could just not support eval for v0.1, and figure out how they want to deal with it in the future. One option is to compile in a runtime + interpreter that could be used if the code being built uses eval.
Any other difficulties you can forsee? or areas where there's a 6502-x86 style feature disparity?
Yes, this is literally the case, I didn't say it would be easy or that it should be done. Maybe I should have been more clear, but it was just a silly joke, lighten up.
Also, analogging perl and c/c++ style languages to the modern x86 and 6502 is a bit hyperbolic.
If I'm understanding your point correctly, you're saying that dynamic interpretation (via code loading or `eval`) is an important perl feature you want to retain. In a world in which someone was crazy enough to write a perl->rust transpiler, they could just not support eval for v0.1, and figure out how they want to deal with it in the future. One option is to compile in a runtime + interpreter that could be used if the code being built uses eval.
Any other difficulties you can forsee? or areas where there's a 6502-x86 style feature disparity?