>>>Should it really? I mean: is the time right for that now? >>> >>> >> >>Let's ask the other way round: Is this the time for only one >>implementation? And who decides that it's the one based on parrot? >> >>What happens if parrot turns out to be a dead end? (very unlikely, but >>possible). >> >> > Let's give some $$$ to say 3 implementations, see what they come up in a > month. Lets mupltiply their 1/CPU-time with #of tests passed :), and the > winner gets the rest of the money.
It's a nice idea, although it ignores development speed nearly completely. >>And different implementations help to explore different part of the >> specs. >>That also helps rakudo, if the specs are well covered by other >>implementations and are therfore much stable and really implementable. >> >> > How about sponsoring some implementations, but give "special attention" > to the most promising one? Sounds good. >>If you argue that most people want an implemenation that covers large >>parts of the specs, the most logical step would be to boost pugs >>development. It's the most advanced implementation by far. >>And I do believe that it can be sped up if you really want that. >> >> > I don't know Haskell and the structure of Pugs so I cannot comment on > that - however, I have some doubts. Same here, but I know that pugs is compiler. Which means that the generated code can be optimized, but it's hard to decrease the compilation time. There is another reason why pugs won't make everyone happy: portability. Try to amke GHC run on anything but linux and windows (and perhaps a few *BSDs), and you'll see what I mean ;-) >>So where's that pro parrot bias coming from? >> >> > IMHO people like the idea of Parrot. It just.. makes sense. It's been > around for quite a while. There are releases every month or so. There is > a mod_parrot. These things. You got a point there. >>>Surely it is very nice to have many implementations (we have seen how >>>much helpful the Pugs project was to help Perl6, for example), but could >>>that happen (or: be sponsored) *after* we have *one* that is fairly >>>complete?? After some time, one imlementations will emerge and become >>>*the* implementations anyway. >>> >> >>Oh will it? Just like we have one C implementation? Or one Forth >>implementation? Or one Lisp implementation? >> > Can we add PHP and Perl5 to the list? ;) I hope you understood the irony;-) : There are many C compilers, many lisp compilers etc., but only one perl5. >>My idea would be to ask big companies that use perl (for example amazon) >>if they would sponsor some of the development. >> >>Are there other organisations that routinely sponsor open source >> software? >> >> > Can't we just go to Google and say we will use Yahoo if they don't give > us some money? :) And if they don't, we tell everyone! ;) ;-) > How about just looking at the sponsor logo-s on the webpages of > different OS conferences? There should be plenty, and could give some > ideas. Good idea. > (But there really should be something you can *show* to them. I > mean at least *one* webpage on Perl6 which is not outdated :) ) I tried to update dev.perl6.org, and I got read access to the svn repository. So I sent patches by email - and that's it. No further response from the webmasters. And the patches haven't been applied. Anybody knows whom I have to poke? webmasterm at perl.org didn't prove very responsive :( Cheers, Moritz
