> [...]
>>>To that end, I'm soliciting:
>>>(1) your suggestions for preparation,
>>>(2) your ideas for proposals, and
>>>(3) your reasons why the Perl 6 ecosystem (including Parrot
>>>    and CPAN6) is one of the world's greatest and and most
>>>    extremely leveraged causes (technically, economically,
>>>    and socially).
>>>I'll also put whatever fundraising-oriented material I come
>>>up with on the Perl 6 wiki, to help and encourage others
>>>along similar lines.
>>I'd like to raise the question what to do with the money, assuming that
>>you can acquire some.
>>I see two possible route:
>>1) Let The Perl Foundation decide what to do with the money
>>advantage: they already have a comitee (is that really an advantage? ;-)
>>disadvantage: they seem to think that Perl 6 on Parrot is _the_ and the
>>only way to go. (There's nothing wrong with rakudo and parrot, but Perl 6
>>is, by definition, a language. And it should have multiple
> Should it really? I mean: is the time right for that now?

Let's ask the other way round: Is this the time for only one
implementation? And who decides that it's the one based on parrot?

What happens if parrot turns out to be a dead end? (very unlikely, but

> It's really hard to define what the community wants: noone can speak on
> behalf of the whole community (and the community has many ideas about
> things :)) However, and strongly IMHO, what most Perl users want is very
> simple: to have a not-too-slow Perl6 implementation that runs most of
> the current Perl6 specification - without too much bugs.

I also think that many perl people also want a good Perl 6 specification.
And different implementations help to explore different part of the specs.
That also helps rakudo, if the specs are well covered by other
implementations and are therfore much stable and really implementable.

If you argue that most people want an implemenation that covers large
parts of the specs, the most logical step would be to boost pugs
development. It's the most advanced implementation by far.
And I do believe that it can be sped up if you really want that.

So where's that pro parrot bias coming from?

> Surely it is very nice to have many implementations (we have seen how
> much helpful the Pugs project was to help Perl6, for example), but could
> that happen (or: be sponsored) *after* we have *one* that is fairly
> complete?? After some time, one imlementations will emerge and become
> *the* implementations anyway.

Oh will it? Just like we have one C implementation? Or one Forth
implementation? Or one Lisp implementation?

> What I would like to add is that IMHO this time implementators should be
> sponsored. That is: those who hack and those who answer their questions
> on how to hack. :)

And perhaps the ones who write the specs, if they want/need it.

> I also think that different Perl groups all around the world could be
> responsive. Let's contact the gazillion perl lists and say: "...if you
> like Perl, please give $10 to the \"Let's have Perl6 now!\" foundation!"
> I would, and I will personally send anyone to /dev/null who would not! :)

I don't know if that's a good idea - sadly many of them have the
perception that Perl 6 is vapour ware.

My idea would be to ask big companies that use perl (for example amazon)
if they would sponsor some of the development.

Are there other organisations that routinely sponsor open source software?
I know if Software in the Public Interest, but I think they only provide
legal backing.


Reply via email to