Re:Larry Wall's Perl 6 Release Talk [video]
by dragonwriter on Monday November 16, 2015 @01:48PM
(#10576231)
> Rakudo and MoarVM clearly aren't what we, as potential Perl 6 developers and users, want.
Why not? A core implementation with its own VM (MRI+YARV for Ruby from 1.9 on, for instance) seems to be pretty common for languages.
> Like I said, we want the Perl 5, Ruby, Python, Lua, and Tcl type of experience.
But that's exactly what Rakudo + MoarVM offers. For the Ruby comparison, Rakudo is analogous to MRI, MoarVM is analogous to YARV.
> We want there to be one consistent implementation that's widely used and trusted.
And why can't Rakudo be that implementation?
> We want something proven and familiar.
Well, clearly, it won't be proven till its been around for a while in production use, and won't be familiar till you've used it for a while. But I don't see any reason that Rakudo (which is used for some things exposed to the public now) can't be the thing that ends up "proven and familiar"?
> Unfortunately, we aren't getting that with Rakudo and MoarVM
Why not? A core implementation with its own VM (MRI+YARV for Ruby from 1.9 on, for instance) seems to be pretty common for languages.
> Like I said, we want the Perl 5, Ruby, Python, Lua, and Tcl type of experience.
But that's exactly what Rakudo + MoarVM offers. For the Ruby comparison, Rakudo is analogous to MRI, MoarVM is analogous to YARV.
> We want there to be one consistent implementation that's widely used and trusted.
And why can't Rakudo be that implementation?
> We want something proven and familiar.
Well, clearly, it won't be proven till its been around for a while in production use, and won't be familiar till you've used it for a while. But I don't see any reason that Rakudo (which is used for some things exposed to the public now) can't be the thing that ends up "proven and familiar"?
> Unfortunately, we aren't getting that with Rakudo and MoarVM
In what concrete way is that true?