Patrick's answer to chromatic's Rakudo requirements (was Re^4: Rakudo Star, Red Queen Edition)

[raiph]

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:

<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

<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

<raiph> #1 but what about regressions due to other factors?

<pmichaud> Star was intended to avoid regressions, yes; but it didn't work out that way.

<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.

<pmichaud> The alternative would have been to not release any form of Star at all, I think.

<pmichaud> #3 (library guarantees of reliability)   Yes, we were hoping to provide a stable platform for library development.

<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.

<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)

<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"

<raiph> chromatic summarizes that he said in dec 2010 "don't do nom, not needed, will take too long".

<pmichaud> I disagree with the "not needed part", vehemently.  We had to rewrite the object model.

<pmichaud> What we had in Star at the time was completely inadequate for long-term growth.

<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.

<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.

<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.

<raiph> right. so here's a key thing: would you say the rakudo project committed to anything?

<pmichaud> we committed to getting some form of official release in July 2010, and have a regular release cycle after that.

<pmichaud> But Star was never intended to be the end product, no.  It was the next stage of development.

<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)

[chromatic]

<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.

[raiph]

I am sorry chromatic. I'll understand if this isn't believed, but I did not intend to misrepresent your view. Far from it. My intent in the chat was to ensure Patrick responded to what seemed to me to be criticisms you were making that seemed to warrant a response: ignoring your warnings, unnecessary regressions, and broken commitments.

I clearly screwed up with the quotes. I had pretty much quit posting on the Internet for a decade, and I am clearly making mistakes as I reconnect. The realtime nature of IRC means I didn't review what I was doing. I realize that this will be hard to believe but what I meant was something akin to "I would summarize chromatic said ...".

Anyhow, that's such a monumental cockup that it's obvious to me that I need to shutup. I'll let Patrick know your response and quit posting here. Thanks PerlMonks for this resource. I will return to reading and not writing.

[chromatic]

I accept your apology, and I respect that it's sincere and straightforward.

I will return to reading and not writing.

You don't have to do that. All I ask is that you quote me properly if you must quote me.