Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Clear questions and runnable code
get the best and fastest answer
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Rewriting History for P6 Spokesweasels (was MoarVM update)

by raiph (Hermit)
on Sep 15, 2013 at 06:13 UTC ( #1054160=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Rewriting History for P6 Spokesweasels
in thread MoarVM update

reading the IRC logs or the mailing list archives of that time period.

I've long thought that the "first Parrot Developers Summit for 2011" gets to the heart of the issues. Am I wrong?

{Parrot needing to evolve in to an optimal NQP backend} was never and would never be acceptable to Parrot.

Does me changing the word from "dedicated" to "optimal" (which more accurately reflects what I think Patrick proposed) make any difference?

When Patrick and Jonathan said that they were going to rewrite NQP again to focus on VM independence ... Rakudo Star was less than a year old

Do you mean to focus more on VM independence?

Patrick decided to go for a multibackend VM strategy in the summer of 2009, as described in the talk video I linked earlier in this thread. Coding on the multi backend NQP began in October 2009.

Or was there just mass confusion between the projects (perhaps because Patrick didn't have sufficient time to keep channels properly open due to his RL circumstances)?

I'll let most of the rest of what you wrote pass without further comment, with a couple exceptions:

I think you'd have to be quite a fool to imagine that {the new object model rewrite} was motivated by anything other than "We don't want to use Parrot anymore." ... when the paid developers of Rakudo told the volunteers of Parrot ... that Parrot had no place in Rakudo, what did you expect to happen?

For better or worse, I have indeed drunk the P6 koolaid, including thinking that Patrick is a nice honest guy with integrity. I don't find credible the claim that Patrick said in 2011 that Parrot had no place in Rakudo.

I hear you about asking the Parrot folk you listed. I'm dubious about that being a good thing because it seems to me likely to be unnecessarily painful and divisive no matter what gets said. Which perhaps also applies to this exchange. So I'll leave you to have the last word if you wish to say something else.

Thank you for all the good things you do for Perl and for this exchange. I think I finally understand why you dislike Perl 6, or, rather, Rakudo.

~~ the P6 Spokesweaselfool


Comment on Re: Rewriting History for P6 Spokesweasels (was MoarVM update)
Re^2: Rewriting History for P6 Spokesweasels (was MoarVM update)
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Sep 15, 2013 at 21:24 UTC
    I think I finally understand why you dislike Perl 6, or, rather, Rakudo.

    No, you really don't.

    I've long thought that the "first Parrot Developers Summit for 2011" gets to the heart of the issues.

    (I had to unblock that site from my DNS to look at it.) No, that link really doesn't (unless you like the part where one of the Rakudo developers stormed off in a fit rather than continue the discussion). What you're missing is The further NQP diverges from Parrot's semantics ..., the less competitive Parrot can be with regard to NQP., which you can see Patrick agreed with. In my mind, the most disappointing part is the agreement to migrate features from PCT, NQP, and Rakudo back into Parrot, replacing parts of Parrot that never actually materialized.

    In other words, that was the assumption I (and it seems like other Parrot developers) operated under. That had long been a big point of contention. Resolving that with a plan made me feel better about the relationship between Parrot and Rakudo.

    Except it never happened. Rakudo was back to blaming Parrot for every little perceived fault within weeks as well as delaying and deferring any migration of code in design or implementation. (Ask Andrew about that; I'm sure he remembers plenty of conversations where he was told not to start on 6model.) Perhaps that agreement was made in haste on Rakudo's side. All I know is that Rakudo dug itself further in the hole of a rewrite which, as predicted, took months and months to get back anywhere close to feature parity, and by that time I was done with the project.

    Look at the timing of this discussion on IRC and the point at which developers left Parrot: within two months. All of the nice words everyone exchanged and the lovely plan everyone seemed to agree too, and then Rakudo's successfully chased almost everyone off. Nice work.

    Coding on the multi backend NQP began in October 2009.

    The most polite way I can think of to characterize that assertion is "complete nonsense", unless people were lying about what they were doing in October 2009. (Were you there? I was.)

    I don't find credible the claim that Patrick said in 2011 that Parrot had no place in Rakudo.

    I never mentioned Patrick and I'd never claim that he said that. You still can't resist putting words in other people's mouths, can you?

    As you yourself said elsewhere in this mess of a thread, Patrick hasn't worked much on Rakudo in the past couple of years—so why would I claim he's one of the paid developers?

    I hear you about asking the Parrot folk you listed.

    Goodness forbid you get some actual perspective on what happened, rather than making up nonsense that you could otherwise easily verify.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1054160]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others about the Monastery: (4)
As of 2014-11-27 03:20 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My preferred Perl binaries come from:














    Results (178 votes), past polls