Front page | perl.perl6.users |
Postings from November 2011
Re: Production Ready Perl 6?
November 23, 2011 06:34
Re: Production Ready Perl 6?
Message ID: B34D738D-354F-44BF-9664-C2B693D9F8F4@comcast.net
Thank you Daniel,
I got that same feeling as well. The question ends up being lost in argumentative responses or personal comments. And, it is a legitimate question which I now know that Perl6 may not be ready for some time and will probably look at other languages such as Ruby to fill the void.
How do I remove myself from this user mail listing as well there is no point in being on the list wing an end user until the final product is ready. I will add myself back when Perl6 is ready to roll out in a production state.
Sent from my iPhone:
On Nov 23, 2011, at 2:59 AM, Daniel Carrera <email@example.com> wrote:
> I see things differently. I think that the question "is Perl 6 production ready?" is a meaningful and fairly important question.
> "Can I reasonably expect to use Perl 6 in a production environment?"
> The question has as much (or more) to do with implementations than the spec, but that doesn't make the question unimportant. I can use C90 and Fortran 95 in a production environment they are supported by stable, robust compilers that produce good quality code. I can use most of C99 and Fortran 2003 in production if I control the compiler.
> It is entirely legitimate to ask whether Perl 6 is ready for use in a similar sense. Is there at least one implementation that covers enough of Perl 6, with enough quality and speed, that one can reasonably expect it to work well in production?
> The feeling that I get from the discussions in this forum, and I mean no offence by this, is that people try to divert the question because they do not like the answer. If Perl 6 + implementations had a support comparable to C99 or Fortran 2003, I strongly suspect that most people would have answered with "yes, it is production ready".
> On 11/22/2011 10:09 PM, B. Estrade wrote:
>> Well said. Also, the OP shouldn't confuse Perl 5 (the
>> interpreter-defined language) with Perl 6 (a language definition for
>> interpreters/compilers). The latter benefits from the fact that "Perl 5"
>> is whatever "perl" says it is - for better or worse.
>> So, asking if "Perl 6 is production ready" is like asking if
>> HPF, C++11, ECMA-262 is "production ready". It just doesn't make sense
>> even if the spirit of the question is mostly understood to mean a
>> "production implementation". Language designing and drafting is a
>> funny thing, and history is wrought with *many* very interesting
>> languages being designed, but failing to gain enough traction to
>> elicite a "production" or (fully implemented) compiler/interpreter. The
>> exercise itself is still extremely valuable and beneficial to all involved.
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:38:15AM +0400, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
>>> Yet again this thread starts up.
>>> Yet again it will end with no one changing their opinions, their
>>> expectations, or the time-span of their vision.
>>> Personally, I use perl6 in my professional analytical work. I can
>>> express solutions to problems elegantly and with a minimum of work.
>>> I am not entirely concerned with the speed for most things, but that is
>>> the nature of what I do.
>>> When I am concerned with speed, I fall back on perl5 and especially
>>> perl5 routines that interface to optimised libraries.
>>> But I am really frustrated when I go back to perl5 because it feels so
>>> clunky compared to perl6.
>>> Ruby and Python overtaking Perl? So what? Neither of them have as much
>>> either of those, I recoil in loathing. Truly I just cannot see why they
>>> or java - it's the way I react to them.)
>>> There are things that are worth doing, and doing well. Implementing
>>> Perl6 belongs to that category of things that have value in themselves.
>>> That is why there are still people still working on Perl6. But if you
>>> cant see the beauty in it, or the progress that has been made, you wont
>>> ever see it. Shame, but that's life.
>>> I have followed Perl6 from the first discussions, the RPCs, the
>>> Apocalypses, Exegeses, Synopses, played with pugs, and rakudo. I have
>>> helped it along with some bug reports and occasional questions and patches.
>>> Sure it's frustrating to be waiting for something and it not to be
>>> there. I waited for Rothfuss's Wise Man's Fear, after reading Name of
>>> the Wind. Now I am waiting for the end of the trilogy and it's
>>> frustrating because Rothfuss hasnt finished it. He is taking the time to
>>> make it what he wants it to be. I want to see how the plots get
>>> resolved. Frustrating, but that's life!
>>> Lets stop asking about 'production ready' releases. And making snarky
>>> remarks when the expected replies come back. It's like asking a
>>> republican about a tax increase. No I am not suggesting a flame war on
>>> politics, but it's another example of asking the wrong question to
>>> someone who already views the world with a different perspective.
>>> Nothing good comes from it, no new light on a subject done to death
>>> already, no change of heart or view by anybody involved. So why do it?
>>> Richard Hainsworth
>>> On 11/22/2011 08:26 PM, Wendell Hatcher wrote:
>>>> Thanks, so it isnt production ready like a release which would be an
>>>> official release of a new version of perl 5? I have the feeling after well
>>>> over 5 years this will never happened. I hope Perl 6 doesnt get seen as a
>>>> novelty or toy and people simply never use it if this hasnt already
>>>> happened. Ruby is passing Perl by like Python did.
>>>> On Nov 22, 2011, at 9:08 AM, Tadeusz So??nierz wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, November 22, 2011 16:59:52 Wendell Hatcher wrote:
>>>>>> Are there people using Perl 6 in production at this time? Is Perl 6
>>>>>> production ready?
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> Tadeusz So??nierz
> I'm not overweight, I'm undertall.