Thank you Daniel, I got that same feeling as well. The question ends up being lost in argumentative responses or personal comments. And, it is a legitimate question which I now know that Perl6 may not be ready for some time and will probably look at other languages such as Ruby to fill the void.
How do I remove myself from this user mail listing as well there is no point in being on the list wing an end user until the final product is ready. I will add myself back when Perl6 is ready to roll out in a production state. Sent from my iPhone: On Nov 23, 2011, at 2:59 AM, Daniel Carrera <dcarr...@gmail.com> wrote: > I see things differently. I think that the question "is Perl 6 production > ready?" is a meaningful and fairly important question. > > "Can I reasonably expect to use Perl 6 in a production environment?" > > > The question has as much (or more) to do with implementations than the spec, > but that doesn't make the question unimportant. I can use C90 and Fortran 95 > in a production environment they are supported by stable, robust compilers > that produce good quality code. I can use most of C99 and Fortran 2003 in > production if I control the compiler. > > It is entirely legitimate to ask whether Perl 6 is ready for use in a similar > sense. Is there at least one implementation that covers enough of Perl 6, > with enough quality and speed, that one can reasonably expect it to work well > in production? > > > The feeling that I get from the discussions in this forum, and I mean no > offence by this, is that people try to divert the question because they do > not like the answer. If Perl 6 + implementations had a support comparable to > C99 or Fortran 2003, I strongly suspect that most people would have answered > with "yes, it is production ready". > > > Daniel. > > > On 11/22/2011 10:09 PM, B. Estrade wrote: >> 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 >>> >>> >> > > > -- > I'm not overweight, I'm undertall.
