Note that if we want scripts to be interpreter-agnostic, the perl6 binary
needs to exist for #! purposes. So renaming it would be bad, but a simlink
would work.

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 2:27 PM Brock Wilcox <awwa...@thelackthereof.org>
wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 11:39 AM, webmind <webm...@puscii.nl> wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, wouldn't it make sense to couple the rakudo release version to the
>> language it implements?
>>
>
> Naw -- there'll be probably monthly rakudo releases but the Specification
> releases should be much less frequent -- like maybe every few months (at
> first) or yearly is my guess.
>
> This might be less confusing if:
> * We referred more often to rakudo instead of perl6 when we mean the
> implementation (you compile with gcc, not "c"; rakudo confusingly calls
> it's interpreter "perl6")
> * Get more implementations! If we had like 3-4 implementations to choose
> from then it might be more obvious what was going on.
>
> Probably there would be a stronger argument for the "perl6" binary to be
> either renamed to "rakudo" or to be a symlink to whatever your
> current-perl6-implementation is were there an alternative implementation
> ... but there isn't... so ... I guess someone should do that. :)
>
> ... though there actually ARE a few others, but none nearly as complete as
> Rakudo, afaik
>
> * https://github.com/sorear/niecza - CLR
> * http://fglock.github.io/Perlito/ - Perlito6 written mostly in Perl6
> (lots of other interesting Perlito stuff)
> * http://perl6.org/compilers/features - comparison
> * several abandoned ones (e.g. Pugs)
>
> --Brock
>
>

Reply via email to