develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from October 2012

Re: What happened to the whole "small core" idea?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Peter Rabbitson
October 28, 2012 08:58
Re: What happened to the whole "small core" idea?
Message ID:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 05:24:43PM +0200, Robert Sedlacek wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-10-27 at 01:41 +1100, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
> > Let's focus on sub signatures for a bit. I've read every thread about 
> > them. Peter Martin's work kicks ass. The speedups are tangible which is 
> > even more awesome. Yet the whole proposal seems to be set up “It either 
> > happens in core or it doesn't happen at all”. Why? What prevents the 
> > core from exposing the correct-level hooks, have *these* hooks unit 
> > tested, and relegate the syntax extension mucking to CPAN? I do not 
> > think performance is an issue – after all linked C is linked C. 
> > Maintainability can't be a problem either – if anything it will be 
> > awesome to have a well factored boundary that will make a performant 
> > CPAN module for such extensions possible. Perhaps testing, but with 
> > CPAN-wide smoking the way we do today, this *also* isn't a problem.
> For me, it's because at one point I'd also like to be able to use these
> features in pure-perl modules.

This is an interesting stance to take... I fail to see the appeal of 
pure-perl to establishments where upgrading perl is not an issue. I can 
not think of a situation where one can expect a recent perl while at the 
same time not having access to XS. Please tell me what am I missing.

> > Furthermore, and this is what baffles me most – I do not seem to be 
> > alone in this sentiment. I am a long-time p5p observer. I do not 
> > participate in p5p dev directly, and even temporarily stepped away from 
> > CPAN this past year. Yet I still go to conferences and meet people, some 
> > of them prominent p5p figures. An overwhelming majority of these folks 
> > flat out stated in a private conversation that adding more syntax to 
> > Perl 5 is not the way to go. Even some members of the Moose cabal have 
> > agreed with me in private that having compile-time acting signatures 
> > prototyped on CPAN first is the sane way forward. Yet when something of 
> > such magnitude is brought up to the list, the general response from 
> > these *same* folks is <crickets>. Furthermore if one reads more into the 
> > threads gems like the following pop up:
> But this feature has been prototyped on CPAN in various forms.

It has not, see my reply to Aristotle, which should show up within an hour.


Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About