Larry Wall skribis 2008-02-21 11:42 (-0800): > : There are many important benefits to having several implementations, > : including fun and education. But commercially and marketing-wise, it's > : better to first assemble something that *works*, then to optimize its > : performance. > Hmm, indeed, you just named one of the things that pugs did better than > parrot.
For different values of working. Certainly if Pugs would still be actively developed, I would suggest funding that path, and not the Rakudo path. Not hindered by knowledge of Haskell, I expected Pugs to be optimizable to workable performance, at least for bootstrapping Perl 6 to a parrot based Perl-6-written-in-Perl-6. > : In terms of priority, the compatible alternative > : implementation should come third, not first. It would be unwise to fund > : multiple implementation projects, and raising those funds would be > : unnecessarily hard. > Well, given that we can't even raise funds for the first project very > well, it's a bit premature to be playing zero-sum games. Can't we? There's little evidence of attempts. I don't know if it has been tried before, but if Conrad thinks he's got a chance, I hope he seriously goes for it. > : Many people feel that Perl 6 is going nowhere. Best thing the community > : can do, is to show them that Perl 6 is getting somewhere. > Again, that was a really good argument for pugs, which among other > things *renewed* excitement in parrot. Absolutely! Neither Perl 6 nor Parrot nor the other implementations would have been where they are now if we hadn't had Pugs. > But around where I live, just because you can see the top of a mountain > doesn't mean you can get there easily. Good point. My Dutch-biased self doesn't have that wisdom :) -- Met vriendelijke groet, Kind regards, Korajn salutojn, Juerd Waalboer: Perl hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://juerd.nl/sig> Convolution: ICT solutions and consultancy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
