Front page | perl.perl6.users |
Postings from November 2011
Re: Production Ready Perl 6?
From: B. Estrade
November 24, 2011 01:12
Re: Production Ready Perl 6?
Message ID: 20111123162242.GI34067@x2045.x.rootbsd.net
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:59:44AM +0100, Daniel Carrera 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".
I don't want to spam the list with my ramblings again, but you're
absolutely correct, too. It's about perspective - Perl 6 to me is a
magical project, and Perl 5 benefits from it all the time. I don't
expect to have an industrial strength implementation from this unless
development switches to a model similar to Perl 5 where the language is
basically defined by a one-true Perl 6 interpreter - say, by forking the
current Perl 5 framework and totally making it Perl 6 compliant.
I see Perl 5 more like, say awk than Fortran or C. It's more a very
powerful utility than a language per se. Perl 6 is trying to make
Perl into a "language" with a spec that can be implemented by others,
therefore most of the work is on the language design and learning how to
implement it. Anything that comes out of this synergy isn't going to be
any more production ready than Backus' first Fortran compiler was. I
mention Fortran only because it's history and path to maturation is
very well known.
I also don't think any of this chicken little talk about Perl 5 falling
entirely, and the question of Perl 5 vs Perl 6 is left for another
day because it's still apples and oranges. If you want to see an
interpreter/language that has the very real potential to compete with
all current dynamic, interpreted languages out there, particularly
on many-core machines that *is* "production ready", take a look at
I've been following Perl 6 and Parrot since the beginning, and I am
still interested in it's success as ever. However, I don't consider
Perl 6 a "new" Perl anymore than I considered New Coke a rightful
successor back in the day because a successor wasn't necessary. Maybe
Perl 6 is more like Diet Coke, which is considered a closely related
product that has it's own flavor and following - it's not really supposed
to be a sugar free version of the "real thing". That's my take on it.
> 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
>>>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?
>>>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
>>>>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
> I'm not overweight, I'm undertall.
B. Estrade <firstname.lastname@example.org>