http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=1061716


in reply to Perl 5 Optimizing Compiler, Part 9: RPerl.org & The Low-Magic Perl Commandments

This node falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Perl 5 Optimizing Compiler, Part 9: RPerl.org & The Low-Magic Perl Commandments
by Will_the_Chill (Pilgrim) on Nov 08, 2013 at 14:52 UTC
    RPerl will retain full backward compatibility with existing Perl 5 and XS code, which means that RPerl can compile the low-magic parts of your code while leaving alone the high-magic parts. This will provide the small speedup for average Perl 5 code which you request, with no source changes necessary and full backward compatibility. If you are married to high-magic code, then you can have the best of both worlds. The low-magic components can be made to run up to hundreds of TIMES faster via the RPerl compiler.

    And I most certainly shall continue to trumpet the virtues of fast code. Anybody who wants their Perl 5 code to run fast will take heed. I need my Perl 5 code to run fast, so the customer is built in! If you don't care about your code running slow, then perhaps RPerl just isn't for you.
      Full backwards compatibility? But you can't pass things to functions? This sounds as useful as Perl-6. Have you met Raiph?
        "you can't pass things to functions"
        How did you come up with that wild misconception? You can pass arguments to functions just fine in RPerl.

        And yes, I'm friends with Raiph. He's a super nice guy. What's your point, a weak attempt at ad-hominem personal attack, maybe? Come on. We all know Perl 6 has issues, so does Perl 5, deal with it.

        Perling,
        ~ Will
        Which part of start like this, restricted subset don't you understand?
Re^2: Perl 5 Optimizing Compiler, Part 9: RPerl.org & The Low-Magic Perl Commandments
by Anonymous Monk on Nov 08, 2013 at 15:03 UTC
    Keeping in mind your continued demonstrations of your lack of comprehension of basic computing concepts, databases, threads (honestly, I could go on and on all week), I weep not only for your customers (should they actually exist and this not be more marketing doublespeak of yours), but for the poor schlubs who who read your “advice” without reading associated responses disproving your quackery.
      Your accusations lack substance, please give me specific examples of something I do not understand?