|
Posted by Ben Bullock on May 2, 2008, 4:22 am
Please log in for more thread options
> the albatross of true backwards compatibility is what has
> kept x86 and redmond so 'backwards' for decades.
But backwards-compatibility-albatross-less Perl 6 has been under
development for eight years, which is getting on for one decade.
|
|
Posted by Uri Guttman on May 2, 2008, 11:22 am
Please log in for more thread options
>> the albatross of true backwards compatibility is what has
>> kept x86 and redmond so 'backwards' for decades.
BB> But backwards-compatibility-albatross-less Perl 6 has been under
BB> development for eight years, which is getting on for one decade.
if any of you would actually follow the perl6 lists you would understand
why it is slow going. also there is no corporate or financial backing
and it is all volunteer work. it is a complex but very powerful lang and
its design (and implementation which is separate from parrot) is not a
trival thing. i prefer to let it gestate at its own rate and be
patient. no one expects it out by christmas and no one claims otherwise.
uri
--
Uri Guttman ------ uri@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
--------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------
|
|
Posted by Ben Bullock on May 2, 2008, 9:18 pm
Please log in for more thread options On Fri, 02 May 2008 15:22:51 +0000, Uri Guttman wrote:
>
> >> the albatross of true backwards compatibility is what has kept x86
> >> and redmond so 'backwards' for decades.
>
> BB> But backwards-compatibility-albatross-less Perl 6 has been under
> BB> development for eight years, which is getting on for one decade.
>
> if any of you would actually follow the perl6 lists you would understand
> why it is slow going.
It would be nice to have some kind of information from the front line,
without having to trawl through endless technical complexities on mailing
list archives. If nobody has enough of an overall grasp of its progress
that they can summarize it, that in itself is rather worrying. Also the
fact that you adopt an aggressive tone when asked about progress tends to
indicate that something is going wrong.
> also there is no corporate or financial backing
> and it is all volunteer work.
Just like the Linux kernel, Apache web server, Perl 5, Gnome, Gimp,
Inkscape, Pan newsreader, GNU Emacs, etc., just to mention a few things
to hand. As far as I know, none of these things have had corporate or
financial backing either. That argument seems like a red herring.
> it is a complex but very powerful lang and
> its design (and implementation which is separate from parrot) is not a
> trival thing.
This kind of talking reminds me very much of the comments around the GNU
Hurd kernel project ten years ago.
> i prefer to let it gestate at its own rate and be patient.
> no one expects it out by christmas and no one claims otherwise.
A lot of the web pages on Perl 6 date from four or more years ago, and
yet their tone is "Perl 6 is going to ...". The implication is that Perl
6 is something we can expect to see soon, and yet those pages are fairly
old. If those people thought Perl 6 would be ready soon, and it wasn't,
I'm curious to know what happened.
|
|
Posted by Uri Guttman on May 3, 2008, 12:08 am
Please log in for more thread options
BB> On Fri, 02 May 2008 15:22:51 +0000, Uri Guttman wrote:
>>
>> >> the albatross of true backwards compatibility is what has kept x86
>> >> and redmond so 'backwards' for decades.
>>
BB> But backwards-compatibility-albatross-less Perl 6 has been under
BB> development for eight years, which is getting on for one decade.
>>
>> if any of you would actually follow the perl6 lists you would understand
>> why it is slow going.
BB> It would be nice to have some kind of information from the front line,
BB> without having to trawl through endless technical complexities on mailing
BB> list archives. If nobody has enough of an overall grasp of its progress
BB> that they can summarize it, that in itself is rather worrying. Also the
BB> fact that you adopt an aggressive tone when asked about progress tends to
BB> indicate that something is going wrong.
>> also there is no corporate or financial backing
>> and it is all volunteer work.
BB> Just like the Linux kernel, Apache web server, Perl 5, Gnome, Gimp,
BB> Inkscape, Pan newsreader, GNU Emacs, etc., just to mention a few things
BB> to hand. As far as I know, none of these things have had corporate or
BB> financial backing either. That argument seems like a red herring.
the linux kernel has tons of commercial support from many companies such
as ibm and red hat. the apache foundation gets lots of corporate
money. many gnu projects have commercial backing (gcc among
others). perl5 has some financial support but it hasn't had much large
corporate due to the lack of a proper foundation (which was only started
recently). so please get your facts straight. many other open source
projects have a fair amount of donated money and labor. there is some
financial support for perl6 via TPF and microgrants. in fact the mozilla
foundation (another project with plenty of corporate support) is one of
the sponsors of perl6 development ( see
http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6/index.cgi?perl_6_people)
>> it is a complex but very powerful lang and
>> its design (and implementation which is separate from parrot) is not a
>> trival thing.
BB> This kind of talking reminds me very much of the comments around the GNU
BB> Hurd kernel project ten years ago.
which never got near the current level of perl6/parrot in terms of
reality and release. parrot is released monthly with notable
progress. perl6 has several compiler front ends and back ends to play with.
>> i prefer to let it gestate at its own rate and be patient.
>> no one expects it out by christmas and no one claims otherwise.
BB> A lot of the web pages on Perl 6 date from four or more years ago,
BB> and yet their tone is "Perl 6 is going to ...". The implication is
BB> that Perl 6 is something we can expect to see soon, and yet those
BB> pages are fairly old. If those people thought Perl 6 would be
BB> ready soon, and it wasn't, I'm curious to know what happened.
so join the perl6 lang list and ask.
the official wiki which is much more recent and is generally active is at:
http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6/index.cgi
plenty to read there. no need to clutter up this group with perl6 talk.
uri
--
Uri Guttman ------ uri@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
--------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------
|
|
Posted by Ben Bullock on May 3, 2008, 1:05 am
Please log in for more thread options On Sat, 03 May 2008 04:08:39 +0000, Uri Guttman wrote:
> >> also there is no corporate or financial backing and it is all
> >> volunteer work.
You state above "there is no corporate or financial backing", then you go
on to state
> there is some financial support for
> perl6 via TPF and microgrants. in fact the mozilla foundation (another
> project with plenty of corporate support) is one of the sponsors of
> perl6 development
> BB> This kind of talking reminds me very much of the comments around
> the GNU BB> Hurd kernel project ten years ago.
>
> which never got near the current level of perl6/parrot in terms of
> reality and release. parrot is released monthly with notable progress.
> perl6 has several compiler front ends and back ends to play with.
The GNU Hurd was in fact released & I believe the project still exists. I
don't know anything about the details of it, but I remember reading
things about it which really remind me of Perl 6: "this is very difficult
to implement but when it's finished it will be incredibly good, much
better than any other operating system kernel" etc.
> plenty to read there. no need to clutter up this group with perl6 talk.
It seems to me more like you're being evasive than worrying about clutter.
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language? | May 2, 2008, 3:40 am |
| Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language? | May 3, 2008, 1:30 am |
| Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language? | May 4, 2008, 1:12 pm |
| Calling a SQL Server Stored Procedure from within Perl | November 21, 2007, 10:41 am |
| (and, ) just how is perl6 coming along? when maybe tryable, usable, reliable? | April 12, 2006, 3:09 pm |
| install_driver(Oracle) failed: Can't load 'C:/Perl/site/lib/auto/DBD/Oracle/Oracle.dll' for module DBD::Oracle: load_file:The specified procedure could not be found at C:/Perl/lib/DynaLoader.pm line 230. | October 14, 2005, 3:08 am |
| Language Perl | June 19, 2007, 3:53 am |
| question about variable procedure call | February 14, 2005, 3:02 pm |
| FAQ 7.1: Can I get a BNF/yacc/RE for the Perl language? | November 19, 2004, 12:03 am |
| FAQ 7.1: Can I get a BNF/yacc/RE for the Perl language? | December 28, 2004, 6:03 am |
|
XML Sitemap