Re^2: How much Perl6 have we got?

[thor]

in reply to Re: How much Perl6 have we got?
in thread How much Perl6 have we got?

It is very simple to answer - we have most of it.

Yeah...simple indeed. Of course when someone says that "most" of something is done, there's an implication that whomever is working on it would have a reasonable estimation of a completion date. Moreover, if they have an estimated completion date, it's sometime in the near future. Perhaps I'm being cynical, but whenever I glance at "This week in Perl 6" on perl.com, there's some pretty fundamental stuff being ironed out still. Not that therey's anything wrong with that; it's a big project. You'll forgive me if I don't agree with your assessment of the situation.

This is also what keeps me away from Perl 6 except for curiosity. I want to wait until there's an official, 100% done version in my hands before I take on the task of learning anything of the language. Why? Right now, I have no guarantee that some feature isn't going to be completely re-written and/or obviated tomorrow. Again, I'm fine with this; Perl 6 is stil in the design stage...a stage in which things are supposed to change. However, my sanity doesn't play well with moving targets.

I'm also in awe of the Pugs project. Again, however, I don't want to write programs that are ahead of the runtime. That is to say that Pugs isn't a feature complete version of Perl 6. It can't be; Perl 6 isn't done. My luck being what it is, I'd write some program based on the specifications and Pugs will have not implemented some key feature of that program. I'm not saying that I'm sort of über coder, just saying that I'm unlucky. ;)

[mdxi]

I concur. Watching the Lambdacamels go is fascinating (and humbling), but I've decided to wait for the Perl 6 version of the Llama before I try to start coding in it, or even worry about it anymore.

P.S. mad props for the Manowar sig

[stvn]

My luck being what it is, I'd write some program based on the specifications and Pugs will have not implemented some key feature of that program. I'm not saying that I'm sort of über coder, just saying that I'm unlucky. ;)

What is wrong with that? This type of thing has been driving the Pugs project from the very begining. I started writing (failing) tests based off the Synopsis in the early days of the project, and within days autrijus would have turned them into passing tests. Both chromatic and Darren Duncan and their work on the p6 versions of Test::Builder and Locale::KeyedText respectively, drove much of the early OO functionality in Pugs. The current work on the Javascript and Perl 5 backends have helped fuel autrijus's work on PIL (Pugs Intermediate Language) and my work on the Object MetaModel.

My point is really that Pugs is a different sort of project than your usual compiler/interpreter project. It is (in autrijus's words) optimized for fun. And autrijus has always said he does not intend Pugs to be "the" Perl 6, and one of the original goals of the project was to help iron out the design of Perl 6 itself by providing a reference implementation.

Another thing about Pugs is that all you need to do to get a commiter bits is ask, and all you need do to get your name in the AUTHORS file is contribute something (even commiting it yourself is not a requirement). No one is expected to contribute any more then they want to or can. Because after all, it's optimized for fun :)

[thor]

The thing is that I learn by doing. Most if not all of how I learned Perl 5 was trying out small snippets, seeing that my understanding was off, revising my understanding, rinse, lather, and repeat. I think that my frustration would grow and I'd end up giving it up anyways. I aplaud yours and everyone elses efforts. I'm sure that they help the Perl 6 folks immeasureably. It's not for me, however.

[TimToady]

And I just want to add that I think it's really important to continue to have a solid set of people sticking with Perl 5 for now. The people out front tend to be in it for the glory and the excitement, and that's wonderful, but the fact of the matter is that it takes all kinds of folks to make an army. Military campaigns are won or lost based mostly on how well the supply chains are guarded, and not so much on how many people are willing to charge up the hill and get cut to ribbons. Though we need some of those people too. And we also need to make allowances for the fact that the kind of people who are willing to be cut to pieces for the sake of their comrades may need to swagger around a bit before the big battle to work up their courage. :-)

Er, sorry, been reading too many WWII retrospectives lately, I guess...

[Anonymous Monk]

Your description indeed made Perl 6 sounds very scary. You prbably didn't know what you are doing. No sane person or corporation will go with perl 6, and your words simply decreased my interest ;-(

[eric256]

You realy should define "go with". are you saying in production? No of course no one would use it in serious production. It isn't finished and until it does it wont be ready. Even when it is 'finished' there will be kinks and problems. If you arn't the type of person who likes betas and testing software then perl 6 isn't for you.

While pugs might looks scary, and sound scary by these answers it realy isn't. In fact it is quite fun and exciting as long as you remember it is a developing project and things will change.

None of that changest the fact that Perl6 is HERE and it is HERE NOW! It is not here for development of commercial projects or anything requireing long term stability. It is here for learning and playing and giving input on how P6 will work. So if you want to play with p6 it is here, if you want to help mold what p6 will be it is here now, if you want to develop major software then p6 is not yet mature enough for your needs. Not being mature, and not being here at all are two completely different concepts in my mind though.

[stvn]

Your description indeed made Perl 6 sounds very scary.

Yes, it can be quite scary at times, but that (at least for me) is the fun part. Keep in mind too that Pugs is only one small portion of the overall Perl 6 effort. If you want sanity and stability, I am sure there are other areas where you could get involved if you were so inclined.

You prbably didn't know what you are doing.

I never said I did ;-)

No sane person or corporation will go with perl 6, and your words simply decreased my interest ;-(

This is somewhat of a blanket statement. No sane person or corporation would go with Perl 6 now. But it is not finished yet, would you have used Java for your Enterprise Application in 1994/5? Certainly not, back then it was only good for applets and GUI toys, IIRC there was no things like JDBC until a few years later.

As for my $work, I have no plans on replacing all our Perl 5 code with Perl 6 anytime soon. But for $play, I enjoy experimenting with Perl 6 and the new concepts it brings to Perl.

[TomDLux]

There's another way of looking at it .... if you code stuff in pugs, then you're way ahead of those who don't, as far as being Perl6-ready. Of course, i wouldn't advise coding anything intended for production, but it's worth exploring fun stuff in your spare time.