On Wed, 2011-05-01 at 19:05 +0300, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
> It seems you may have concluded something not intended.

I was unsurprised at the reaction to your post.

> I think the issue of a version number is irrelevant, given the vested 

Clearly you were wrong.

> For my part, I already use Rakudo for nearly all my programming needs - 
> not that they are particularly burdensome or mission critical. The 
> elegance of the language in itself is a powerful reason to use it. I am 
> willing to deal with and work around the problems.

I have decided to adopt it for one project.  If that is successful, I
will switch from 5 to 6.  If not, I'll have to consider python or ruby
for the next one.

> Even in this thread higher standards have been alluded to. But what are 
> they? How specifically can they be quantified?
> Speed, memory, ease of use?

The fact that Rakudo comes with:

 a) a warning that it is slow
 b) a list of things which are *not* implemented

Is a red flag.  Similarly, Moose has warnings about start-up time so I
don't use it as most of my perl is command-line scripts.

I think it would be useful to freeze rakudo1 as soon as possible but it
would be helpful to have some benchmarks so we know *how* slow.  I
started using perl4 after perl5 was already in use.  I stuck with perl4
until I got interested in OO.

Rakudo is not listed here:
Fixing that is something I'd like to help with.

Note that go was listed *before* it was announced.  That tells me that
the go authors are, in some small way, more serious about their project
"succeeding" than perl6.


Reply via email to