|There's more than one way to do things|
Propaganda for P6 Advocatesby chromatic (Archbishop)
|on Aug 06, 2013 at 16:48 UTC||Need Help??|
While the details are of course different I find dukeleto's description of MoarVM as "the spiritual successor to M0" apt.
With all due respect, you find it apt because you don't know anything about M0.
Your strategy of finding random quotes from IRC which, when taken out of context, appear to support whatever you're trying to argue at the moment is not research. It's propaganda—done badly, at that.
If you were truly interested in M0, any decent search engine, or even a trawl through one of several Perl 6 and Parrot Links pages, would have taken you to an article written in 2011 by one of the designers and developers of Lorito and M0. That article is Less Magic, Less C, A Faster Parrot, which says:
The current stage of Lorito is M0, the "zero magic" layer of implementing a handful of operations which provide the language semantics of C without dragging along the C execution model. In other words, it's a language powerful enough to do everything we use C for without actually being C. It offers access to raw memory, basic mathematical operations, and Turing-complete branching while not relying on the C stack and C calling conventions.
This was the core of both the M0 design and Lorito itself.
If you'd bothered to find that, let alone understand it, I hope you wouldn't have posted such nonsense. MoarVM may have a fine design, but unless it's taking the Squeak Slang approach (or the Forth approach or...) that M0 intended, MoarVM has nothing substantive in common with M0. The only reasonable interpretation of dukeleto's comment is that it's metonymy, where "a smaller, simpler VM (via reimplementation as Moar)" is similar to "a smaller, simpler VM (via M0)".
Metonymy is not, of course, an exhaustive technical explanation.
Your lack of research and your apparent disregard for the truth of what happened—even when you're corrected by the people who were actually there, who actually designed and implemented the subjects under discussion—makes both you and P6 look bad. If you're trying to advocate for P6, you're doing a terrible job.
I shouldn't have to keep telling you this.
If you don't think an NQP/MVM "hello world" counts as Perl 6 code...
After thirteen years, I don't care about potential. If and when something passes the P6 spec tests, I'll take it seriously as a P6 implementation.