in reply to Re^7: Perl 5 Optimizing Compiler, Part 10: Kickstarter & Performance Benchmarks in thread Perl 5 Optimizing Compiler, Part 10: Kickstarter & Performance Benchmarks
vkon,
I don't necessarily disagree with you, although I'm not sure it is worthwhile to focus too much on Kurila anyway.
RPerl is here, Kurila is gone, that's all, no biggie to me.
Thanks,
~ Will
Re^9: Perl 5 Optimizing Compiler, Part 10: Kickstarter & Performance Benchmarks
by vkon (Curate) on Dec 03, 2013 at 18:31 UTC
|
I was complaining about item in a list, that feels a bit odd, to say the least.
Yet, comparing to another project is useful, and worthwhile: this way you're staying on giant's shoulders and can do more things with fewer efforts.
BTW I have suspection that Gerard Goessen understands perl internals much better than average person. Do you think you have at least 50% of his skills on internals??
...and still - he failed.... Why?? | [reply] |
|
vkon,
I know enough about Perl 5 internals to have successfully created typemaps for numbers, scalars, arrays, and hashes, as well as hand-compiling 1 benchmark application.
I am learning more and more as I go along!
How much do you know about Perl internals?
Thanks!
Perling,
~ Will
| [reply] |
|
I know enough about Perl 5 internals to have successfully created typemaps for numbers, scalars, arrays, and hashes, as well as hand-compiling 1 benchmark application.
hmmm..... not enough, if you ask me... But - I am sincerely glad that you have strong intentions to go forward....
About me - this is not interesting.
just show what you have on the next YAPC - that's good enough to inspire a number of people, that's it.
:)
| [reply] |
|
|
Re^9: Perl 5 Optimizing Compiler, Part 10: Kickstarter & Performance Benchmarks
by vkon (Curate) on Dec 04, 2013 at 03:14 UTC
|
IOW you provide long list on rperl.vs.kurila differences but dont actually care on its correctness, just having invalid entries in it and doing nothing about it?
added value of this is exactly zero, then.........
sorry | [reply] |
|
vkon,
1a. Kurila is a new language. Perl 5 code can be (somewhat) converted into Kurila. Kurila code is NOT Perl 5.
1b. RPerl is strictly a subset of Perl 5. RPerl code IS Perl 5 code. RPerl code will run unmodified by the existing Perl 5 interpreter, and it can also be compiled.
2a. Kurila is not specifically focused on speed.
2b. RPerl is specifically focused on speed.
3a. Kurila is a fork of Perl 5.
3b. RPerl is an upgrade to Perl 5.
4a. Kurila breaks backward compatibility.
4b. RPerl specifically maintains backward compatibility, so compiled RPerl code can be mixed back in with un-compiled Perl 5 code.
Do you like the new list?
Thanks!
Perling,
~ Will the Chill
| [reply] |
|
now the list is a bit better, indeed...Can you please give an idea why 3a--3b and 4a-4b are in separate items. Aren't these are speaking on exactly the same thing?? And also the same for 1a--1b...
To say, when Gerard announced that he will made new syntax - I was strictly against that and then I never did a smallest attempt to rewrite my (tiny) module for new syntax... new syntax = no cookie...
this is a point of an agreement.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|