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. Brett 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 > coverage as javascript or java, and every time I have to deal with > either of those, I recoil in loathing. Truly I just cannot see why they > should have SO much attention. (No need for a flame war about javascript > 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 patches. > > 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? > > Regards, > Richard Hainsworth > > > 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 well >>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. >> >> >> >>-Dell >>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 >>>>production ready? >>>http://ttjjss.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/what-is-production-ready/ >>>Kind regards, >>>-- >>>Tadeusz So??nierz > > -- B. Estrade <estr...@gmail.com>
