> As I gradually learn how Parrot works, I see that perhaps the idea of
> decompiling byte-code into language ___ is only a pipe-dream. But the
> point still remains--using the fact that one *could* mix languages X,
> Y, and P into your company's source tree is a very weak argument for
> Parrot/Perl6. I would say it is a non-argument.
Not really. Think about a Cobol-to-Parrot translator. You could for
example use Perl (glue) to add GUI stuff to old Cobol programs.
Just see it as a way to solve real problems. You don't have to use it
yourself.
I'll try to be more clear. The original question was seeking opinions
on what the big gains were for companies to switch to Parrot/Perl6
(someday). My point was that saying it would allow a mixture of
languages to be used in an application is, in my real-world
experience, not something companies are currently seeking, plus you
don't need to upgrade to do it, so it isn't really a selling point
worth bringing up to your local IT Manager type person.
> The reason this would make an IT Manager cry is not (promarily)
> because it is slow (etc, etc),
It isn't slow.
My comment was in reference to the immediately preceding example of
using backticks, which spawn extra processes and therefore IS slower
than not spawning extra processes. Sorry if that was confusing.
> it also means she now has to keep a
> Java/PHP/Perl programmer around and happy whenever one of three
> different languages might throw a buggie.
No, it is not limited by that.
Huh? Let me give an actual example. A major broadcasting company I was
contracted with needed to change part of their gigantic code base that
dealt with a data source of live sports scores (which were
automatically displayed on air). The code was all Perl :-) except for
one chunk in Python--so guess where the problem was. This had to be
fixed FAST and no one in the office knew Python well enough to do it,
including me (the guy who wrote the Python was long gone to work at
Google). In the end it was decided to rewrite that chunk in Perl. I
can tell you, there definitely was cursing in the office that day, and
I doubt anyone there would see it as a plus to have the ability to mix
languages more easily. I just wouldn't put it that way if I were
trying to sell Perl6 to a business manager.
In my experience Perl has an (undeserved) bad reputation in regards to
large, long-term projects because it allows "too much" flexibility.
Really that means management has to do work to set and enforce
standards, but those managers aren't going to be impressed by hearing
Perl 6 makes it easy to mix lots of different languages together.
Nevermind how cool/useful I personally think that is.
--michael
