Re^4: A wholly inadequate reply to an Anonymous Monkby Anonymous Monk
|on Apr 23, 2010 at 10:41 UTC||Need Help??|
We have an object system like Moose on Perl 5 now with Roles and all; So I don't see why we couldn't have one on a cleaned up Perl 5 (the hypothetical Perl 6). Same goes for grammars, they're halfway there in Perl 5.10. Custom operators are there in 5.12 with ugly parser hooks, etc.
We've had 10 years of very productive Perl 5 development. It would have been very interesting to see what those 10 years would have been like had some of the uglier parts of the core been deprecated in favor of some of the features in Perl 6.
As for the JVM I don't think I'm that wrong. I'll give you continuations and coroutines but lightweight concurrency? Have you looked at Clojure? Its hello world demo is a ~100 thread application and it's been known to run up to a thousand threads or so pushing a few gigabytes of data per second around on a few hundred cores. It also does multimethods (Lisp-style). And in any case the JVM seems to be able to emulate these things just fine even if you don't use its native calling conventions.
Anyway discussing VMs for some of the more fancy Perl 6 features is getting a bit sidetracked (although I'd still be interested in why some of the Lisp VMs weren't adapted).
I just wanted to reply to the OP (without any hostilities) who was curious as to what the "hysteria" might be about. My posting sought to aggregate some of the most common concerns that I've heard. That's all.
For a lot of people (including me) Perl 5 is what pays the bills. There isn't a single company (correct me if I'm wrong) that's doing Perl 6 development (despite claims that "you can use it today!").
I think it's understandable given all that that 10 years later we only have a pre-alpha implementation and little uptake, and bad some bad PR for Perl externally.