Sounds like a false dilemma to me!

You hear what you want to hear.

There is nothing false about:

• Hey. We're investigating X; come and join in if you are interested.
• It's a waste of time; it can't be done; you shouldn't even try; it's anti-Perl; anti-Larry; anti-FOSS; anti-us -- and tantamount to genocide to even try.

I'd like a faster Perl 5, but given my experience ... naysay, naysay... If you want to get more than 5% here or 10% there, naysay, naysay ...

Is just more of the same.

Have you ever profiled to see where Perl spends most of its time? I have. In order: stack manipulation; memory allocation; testing for the presence of magic; doing actual work.

Have you ever measured how many clock cycles it takes Perl5 to allocate 2 new scalars, push them onto its stack(s) and transfer control to code that pulls them off manipulates them, produces an answer, allocated space for it, pushes it onto the stacks and return control to the "caller"?

Have you ever contrasted that with doing the identical steps using the C-stack. Still dynamically; full SV-style manipulations; no compile-time optimisations. Just switching the C stack for Perl's 4 heap stacks?

I have. And there is a crap load of room for a performance hike. Conservatively 200% looks doable without changing Perl's syntax or semantics. Maybe much more.

But there is no point in trying to discuss it; because the naysayers have already decided the outcome of all possible investigations and strategies. Or so they seem intent on us believing.

My question -- my false dilemma as you prejudge it so off-handly -- is why? Why do they want us to believe it? What harm is it to them, if someone else chooses to try?