On Wed, 2011-05-01 at 19:05 +0300, Richard Hainsworth wrote: > It seems you may have concluded something not intended.
I was unsurprised at the reaction to your post. [snip] > I think the issue of a version number is irrelevant, given the vested Clearly you were wrong. [snip] > For my part, I already use Rakudo for nearly all my programming needs - > not that they are particularly burdensome or mission critical. The > elegance of the language in itself is a powerful reason to use it. I am > willing to deal with and work around the problems. I have decided to adopt it for one project. If that is successful, I will switch from 5 to 6. If not, I'll have to consider python or ruby for the next one. > > Even in this thread higher standards have been alluded to. But what are > they? How specifically can they be quantified? > > Speed, memory, ease of use? [snip] The fact that Rakudo comes with: a) a warning that it is slow b) a list of things which are *not* implemented Is a red flag. Similarly, Moose has warnings about start-up time so I don't use it as most of my perl is command-line scripts. I think it would be useful to freeze rakudo1 as soon as possible but it would be helpful to have some benchmarks so we know *how* slow. I started using perl4 after perl5 was already in use. I stuck with perl4 until I got interested in OO. Rakudo is not listed here: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/ Fixing that is something I'd like to help with. Note that go was listed *before* it was announced. That tells me that the go authors are, in some small way, more serious about their project "succeeding" than perl6. -- --gh
