On Monday 02 April 2007, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 05:06:34AM +0300, Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > Hi Marc!
> >
> > May I forward my reply to the list?
> Yes, you may. Sorry for replying probably too late, thanks for asking
> first!

OK. Replying to two different list (which I'm not subscribed to).

> > > Well, to me, that very much sounds like "we do not openly admit it, but
> > > we want to have Perl 5+1 working now, not whatever the Perl 6 people
> > > claim they will deliver 5 years ago".
> >
> > Heh. Well, I don't expect to be able to duplicate the Pugs functionality
> > in a short time. :-). However, if you look at:
> >
> > http://www.shlomifish.org/rindolf/
> I wasn't clear then. Many peopel do not want a completely
> different-in-spirit language called "Perl6", but many people atcually want
> a language very much in spirit as Perl 5, just with a few important changes
> done.

You're right. I used to be very opposed to Perl 6. Now understand that it has 
some nice improvements over Perl 5, but still find looking at its code to be 
quite a bit of a future shock. "Perl 6 is a nice language. Too bad it's not 
Perl." ;-)

> What important changes is a matter of taste and debate, but static typing
> is certainly not on the wishlist, especially if its just going to be a
> hack to help your optimiser doing stuff it should do without limiting your
> expressibility.

Yes, that's right.

> > You'll see that back at the time, I was bothered with making Rindolf a:
> >
> > 1. Backwards compatible with Perl 5.
> Original Perl 6 goal.

Hmmm... are you sure?

> > 2. Not entirely compatible with Perl 6.
> Well :)

Well hopefully you would be able to call Rindolf code from Perl 6 code and 
vice versa. Also see:


For a different approach for creating a cross-language interaction layer. I 
admit that I haven't started working on it yet.

> > 3. Much less of a future shock than Perl 6 is.
> Original Perl 6 goal.


> If you look at the history, you will see that Perl 6 died halfway in
> between, and then completely changed its character. It has very little to
> do with Perl 5 anymore, and is probably actively hurting Perl 5 (but it
> seems Perl 5 is regenerating slowly).

Well, I prefer a "Do and let do" and (less preferably) a "Complain and let 
complain" approach than a hurt calcalution. Some people found value in Perl 
6, and Audreyt actually created an implementation that sort-of-works. People 
are also having fun working on Parrot and other related projects. As you 
know, perl5 (the C-based implementation) has also not been completely 
neglected, and its hackers are doing fine.

This reminds me of the standard "isn't there a better way to spend the time 
working on Porting to MS Windows" myth. If there are people who are willing 
to do something FOSSy, then it is worth doing.

> > I neglected working on Rindolf because I realised I was not particularly
> > bothered by the features I suggested, or often found out these features
> > were doable in Perl 5. Since then, however, I often found places where I
> > could use some more advanced features. Not critically, since perl 5 was
> > good enough, but still.
> >
> > As much as I respect lwall (and a lot of respect is due), I believe his
> > use of Perl for practical applications is rather minimal and does not
> > make use of the full range of the Perl 5 hollow technologies (CGI,
> > Catalyst/CGI::App/etc., POE, TT/H::T/Petal/etc., etc.). As such, while he
> > has a good intuition on what's missing in the core language, he's still
> > probably not making the full use of Perl 5's expressive power, much less
> > Perl 6's.
> Wouldn't outright agree to that (because I cannot make up my mind about
> this interestign aspect so quickly), but I wish you success in Rindolf.


Like I said - no promises. Maybe I'll get to hacking on punie - maybe I won't. 
The day is short, and I have a lot of work to do.

> (Although it seems the most interesting promises made by parrot - fast
> typeless code for example - are not going to be delivered, too).

Hmmm.... I haven't been closely following Parrot.

> (I do not think sending this mail to p5p is a good idea, but it is ok with
> me if you want to make a reply to it and want that published).

As I said, I'm sending it to p6-language and p6-internals instead.


        Shlomi Fish

Shlomi Fish      [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
    -- An Israeli Linuxer

Reply via email to