Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
There's more than one way to do things
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: Rakudo Star, Red Queen Edition

by chromatic (Archbishop)
on Jan 24, 2012 at 07:40 UTC ( #949603=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Rakudo Star, Red Queen Edition
in thread Hockey Sticks

In the 2009 post announcing Rakudo Star Patrick himself explicitly focused on his discomfort with the moniker "stable"...

I was in the room with him! His concern as I recall was in part due to the fact that he (and everyone, really) rightly expected that the specification would change. It has.

If you read my posts, you'll find out that that's never been my concern.

Please do us both the courtesy of reading my posts.


Comment on Re^2: Rakudo Star, Red Queen Edition
Re^3: Rakudo Star, Red Queen Edition
by raiph (Hermit) on Jan 26, 2012 at 08:34 UTC
    OK. I assume you didn't mean your posts in this Meditation. (I've carefully read all of those, but I think that was obvious.) So I just went and explored the 25 matches to a google for "site:www.modernperlbooks.com rakudo star". This seemed an appropriate best effort response to your request. Maybe this wasn't what you meant; if so I'd appreciate an elaboration of "my posts" or better still some specific URLs or quotes.

    The only posts of the 25 saying something substantive relevant to this exchange were Why My Side Project Doesn't Use Perl 6 and In Search of Minimum Viable Utility. I'd read both of those before.

    Imo your link to "my list of requirements to use Rakudo for practical purposes" in the earlier post is the most revealing element. I don't think Rakudo Star was intended to meet those sorts of requirements. I plan to ask Patrick if he thinks Rakudo Star was, should be, or will ever be, about trying to meet those sorts of requirements. If he chooses to answer, I'll post back here to update.

      Update. I screwed up in this chat. chromatic explains that I completely misrepresented his position. See this post for the details.

      Patrick Michaud (a leading dev of Rakudo, a leading Perl 6 compiler) was kind enough to provide his response to chromatic's "list of requirements to use Rakudo for practical purposes" inasmuch as they applied/apply to Rakudo Star.

      I've edited out some stuff I consider unnecessary. Here's what's left:

      10:14 <pmichaud> #1 (work on future releases)  Rakudo Star was intended to support that to the degree that the Perl 6 language would support it.  If the language changes significantly, there's not much Rakudo can do about that short of providing some sort of release cycle for code migration
      10:14 <pmichaud> #2  (tied to one release)  I think that question is more about other implementations than Star itself; but no, Star has never been intended to be its own walled garden of Perl 6
      10:15 <raiph> #1 but what about regressions due to other factors?
      10:15 <pmichaud> Star was intended to avoid regressions, yes; but it didn't work out that way.
      10:16 <pmichaud> I think jnthn++ (and I) really underestimated the degree of regression that would be involved.  But I'm not sure it could've been helped either.
      10:16 <pmichaud> The alternative would have been to not release any form of Star at all, I think.
      10:17 <pmichaud> #3 (library guarantees of reliability)   Yes, we were hoping to provide a stable platform for library development.
      10:17 <pmichaud> #4 (stuck on cycle of monthly upgrades)  Star was explicitly intended to enable people to break the cycle of monthly upgrades, by providing standard checkpoints.
      10:18 <pmichaud> Again, there were some problems there, but not entirely Rakudo/Star's fault (Parrot made some significant changes that we had to react to and that caused some babysitting)
      10:19 <pmichaud> #5 (abandon code due to compiler rewrite)  I can't say what Star intended here.  We wanted to have a more consistent platform, yes; but again, much of the changes in the new implementation were due to language requirements and not a capricious "oh let's rewrite the compiler again"
      10:20 <raiph> chromatic summarizes that he said in dec 2010 "don't do nom, not needed, will take too long".
      10:21 <pmichaud> I disagree with the "not needed part", vehemently.  We had to rewrite the object model.
      10:21 <pmichaud> What we had in Star at the time was completely inadequate for long-term growth.
      10:22 <pmichaud> And the politics of the time meant that there wasn't a way to get crucial object model changes into Parrot in a timely fashion.
      10:23 <pmichaud> it's been a hot-button issue for him, certainly.  I have a great deal of respect for chromatic, and generally agree with him in most respects, but this has always been a place where we've had to agree to disagree.
      10:23 <pmichaud> I don't think he's wrong about the negative impacts of doing nom; I just don't see what we could have done differently.
      10:24 <raiph> right. so here's a key thing: would you say the rakudo project committed to anything?
      10:25 <pmichaud> we committed to getting some form of official release in July 2010, and have a regular release cycle after that.
      10:25 <pmichaud> But Star was never intended to be the end product, no.  It was the next stage of development.
      10:26 <pmichaud> (we didn't necessarily plan on a full compiler rewrite, but that's effectively what ended up happening.  Again, it was what made sense at the time)
      
        <raiph> chromatic summarizes that he said in dec 2010 "don't do nom, not needed, will take too long".

        Complete nonsense.

        (You also elided—whether from the discussion or what you told Patrick—other pertinent details I've explained about what I expected from Rakudo.)

        If you're not going to do me the courtesy of reading and understanding what I've written, please do everyone the courtesy of not spreading falsehoods, especially to other people, especially where I hear about them after the fact and can't rebut that nonsense immediately.

        You're of course welcome to summarize (in this case, very wrongly) what you think I said provided you disclaim it as your (wrong) opinion, but putting it in quotes? As if I'd ever thought that, let alone said or written it? That's malicious and libelous.

        Shame on you.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://949603]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others perusing the Monastery: (9)
As of 2014-12-26 07:59 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Is guessing a good strategy for surviving in the IT business?





    Results (168 votes), past polls