Depends on the area you look at. But what does that have to do with Perl 6 (which, again, is a language, and not a compiler) being ignorant of prior art?
Your criticism comes out like saying "C is not <adjective>" because a C compiler you happen to have worked with isn't <adjective>. Which isn't very educated at all.
I'm happy to revise my decision if you can come up with several examples that illustrates where the Perl 6 designers are ignorant of prior art.
| [reply] |
I'm happy to revise my decision if you can come up with several examples that illustrates where the Perl 6 designers are ignorant of prior art.
You're drawing a very fine distinction between somewhat disjoint groups: Perl 6 designers, Perl 6 implementors, and Parrot implementors. Outside of #perl6 and perhaps #parrot, no one cares about this distinction. In truth, that finger pointing is one big reason for my disillusion with the whole thing.
| [reply] |
For a common programmer. Perl 6 means a program that runs everything as defined in the Perl 6 manual. Very few people would bother to know the difference between a specification and implementation.
| [reply] |
I know, but I expect better from somebody who calls himself "educated", has contributed to the VM and arroaches to call the involved people "ignorant".
I also honestly don't see why that distinction is so hard to grasp. After all C is also a language, and there are many well-known compilers (GCC, MSVC, ICC, ...), and most programmers are aware of that fact.
| [reply] |
| [reply] |