On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 11:11:45PM -0400, John Porter wrote: > Thanks, Steve. I agree 100% with everything you said! > > Except: > > > ... the best way to that > > goal is to use Perl6 as the driver, at least until something else > > shows up, because that's the only way to derive realistic requirements > > for what needs to be accomplished. > > The incorrectness of that is directly proportional to the immaturity > of the language specification. And it goes without saying (heh) that > there are plenty of languages with more solid specs than Perl6.
That's the "showing up" part. We've got smart people right now who care about getting Perl6 up and running on Parrot. Or at least, a person who's straining to become plural. :-) We have a handful of other languages that are more proof-of-concept or for other reasons are happy to just do as much as possible with the amount of Parrot that exists already. These are undeniably great things, but won't drive development. More languages would be better (perhaps Scheme will push on the Sub PMC and its three-headed relatives?), but at this very moment we only have one. Speaking of Sub/Coroutine/Continuation, right now we *really* need someone who pretends to understand this stuff to take a look at Jonathan Sillito's patches and do something with them. Or give him commit privs, or something.
