chromatic, you have said yourself:

Rakudo Star is a useful and usable subset of Perl 6 you can use right now.

As I've consistently argued, it's up to you to decide what "useful" or "production" or "stable" mean.

At that time you had used Rakudo Star and seemed to accept the subjective definition of notions like "useful" and "production".

But I note that you introduced "stable". In the 2009 post announcing Rakudo Star Patrick himself explicitly focused on his discomfort with the moniker "stable", subjectively defined or not, in the context of Rakudo Star (let alone the in-development Rakudo compiler):

So, once we eliminate the notion of "finished", the wording is often changed to try to make it more tractable, often by asking when there will be a "stable release". ... part of me thinks "Huh? Those questions don't really fit with the way things really happen in language development... "

Rakudo Star is likely to be more stable than the plain Rakudo compiler, but it is clearly not something anyone should be building a business project on.

One year ago, in January 2010, Rakudo Star was unusable for my business projects.

s/2010/2011/.

Was Rakudo Star ever usable for your business projects?

While I'd objected to the nom fork-and-rewrite

Do you think your objection was influenced by the fact that Rakudo (Star or otherwise) was unusable for your business projects?

I decided against using whatever the "stable" branch of Star was at the time

There are no (non-master) branches of Star, "stable" or otherwise.

because it was also clear that it was a branch abandoned to bitrot

New quarterly Star releases were published in April and July, with 200 commits after the creation of the compiler nom branch in February. Given the nature of Rakudo Star as it was intended (not as a basis for business projects!) its treatment seems reasonable to me and not consistent with "abandoned to bitrot".

That means no bugfixes.

Check the commit log. I see bug fixes.

It's almost a year later, and nom isn't up to the point where its predecessor was. (It's ahead in some ways, but it's regressed in others. If you're claiming that Star provides stability, you don't regress.)

You're confusing the Rakudo compiler and Rakudo Star.

The Rakudo compiler appears to be far ahead of where it was a year ago in many regards, chiefly because of the nom branch, as one would expect.

Rakudo Star, which is a package including many things, has not yet switched to the nom version of the compiler, so it can not have regressed due to the nom branch. As made clear near the start of this comment, while Rakudo Star is said to be more stable than the plain compiler, the team explicitly avoided stability promises of the sort that someone doing a business project might require.

It is unfortunate that you misunderstood Rakudo Star's purpose and scope. I agree the team would be well advised to see if it can further clarify Rakudo Star's purpose and scope, and I will mention this on #perl6.

---

---

• Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
• Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:

  <code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>

• Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
• Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.