|Problems? Is your data what you think it is?|
Re^5: MoarVM updateby chromatic (Archbishop)
|on Sep 13, 2013 at 18:47 UTC||Need Help??|
Fwiw that quote is from the doc about a fork of NQP created as part of the Parrot project.
That's misleading. By my recollection, the NQP version checked into Parrot was at least the third version of compiler tools created for Rakudo (depending on how you count PGE and TGE). Somehow someone convinced Parrot it was a good idea to write new and rewrite existing tools in that NQP, which meant that Parrot had to import snapshots of that NQP into the repository.
The people who forked NQP were the Rakudo developers who wrote the previous NQPs.
With the December 2010 plan to rewrite NQP, Parrot developers (including me) said "Wait a minute; you're breaking existing code!" and "Wait a minute; you're rewriting NQP to be VM agnostic, which is irrelevant at best to Parrot and will cause a lot of pain to Parrot for no real benefit."
The NQP response was "We're going to do this anyway. Don't worry, we have no plans to replace Parrot. VM portability is important to us anyway."
Does P5 pass every test for every platform it runs on?
Perl 5 has users, documentation, stability, libraries, and a history of letting real people solve real problems with confidence that they can upgrade between releases with minimal disruption.
P6 culture encourages such tests.
When I worked on the P6 specifications, Larry did say that there were certain features that wouldn't make it into 6.0.0 but rather 6.1 or 6.2, but I don't believe that that ever included the tens of thousands of spectests Rakudo doesn't pass now—so I think you're playing semantic games by comparing edge cases in Perl 5 to missing features in P6.