in reply to Re^6: It has been suggested to rename Perl 6 in order to boost its marketing potential. Which name would you prefer?
in thread It has been suggested to rename Perl 6 in order to boost its marketing potential. Which name would you prefer?

For those of us willing to be convinced, why is no-XS a minus for Perl6?
  • Comment on Re^7: It has been suggested to rename Perl 6 in order to boost its marketing potential. Which name would you prefer?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: It has been suggested to rename Perl 6 in order to boost its marketing potential. Which name would you prefer?
by syphilis (Bishop) on Jul 18, 2018 at 12:30 UTC
    ... why is no-XS a minus for Perl6?

    Obviously, given that I like perl's XS facility, from my POV it's going to be a "minus" that Perl6 doesn't provide that type of C interface. There's also the fact that XS can access static libs.

    On Windows, which is the OS I most commonly use, we have a module named Win32::API that, like perl6's Native Calling Interface, allows us to call directly into dynamic libraries.
    I neither like nor use Win32::API either. (In fact, I can't stand it.) I much prefer to do it via XS.

    Cheers,
    Rob