> Their major name recognition as a solid entity could be very helpful in
> attracting major donations prior to Perl 6's first production release.
>
Yes, they appreciate that, which is why they donated to TPF. They wanted to
endorse TPF and p6 to make it easier for others to do so.
Cheers,
- Richard Dice
(President of TPF)
> I've seen that Daniel Ruoso applied for a grant for his smop project,
> basically a virtual machine and fast backend for kp6, and perhaps other
> implementations.
>
> TPF decided not to invest into yet another implementation.
I appreciate that it is a subtle distinction to make, too subtle to
r
rth wrote:
>
> > What the perl6 language needs now is a systematic development plan, with
> > broad aims and clear goals that will lead to good quality software and
> > to the tools to enable ordinary programmers to use perl6 for a variety
> > of tasks.
>
> Richard Dic
Hi James,
Your comment suggest you have a particular perspective or point of view.
Without providing a some context I'm afraid I'm going to find some of your
comments confusing.
>
> * just release perl 6 now and move on
>
This is one of those confusing comments. There isn't a single p6
implem
e's a lot to be said for individual
JDFI, which can be very efficient. But it doesn't scale into certain
realms. Maybe this is one of those realms, maybe it isn't.
The plan currently under discussion within TPF is the one written up by
Richard Hainsworth on March 11, with body beg
