Even worse, now you need to elaborate why you're sure that it's a lost cause and add arguments to your critic.

Of course you could watch the videos first and tell us afterwards where the logical fallacies are. This might be easier.

This whole underdetailed "nothing I've seen till 2011" routine is little convincing and won't help you getting detailed answers to your (rhetorical?) question. :)

Even worse, now you need to elaborate why you're sure that it's a lost cause and add arguments to your critic.

That's not my argument, but why do I need to elaborate? What's unclear about "this has been promised since 2011, and it hasn't happened yet, so why should I believe it's right around the corner"?

Of course you could watch the videos first and tell us afterwards where the logical fallacies are. This might be easier.

Why? What's changed in the design since 2011-2013?

When I profiled Rakudo, I proposed a simple grammar change to freeze the definition of .ws to a well-understood character class so that every grammar rule wouldn't have to go through a method lookup between tokens. Larry said no. (I can't remember if that was a 30% or 40% speed improvement in the Rakudo test suite.)

NQP is pretty speedy. It's not bad for a dynamic language. Rakudo isn't speedy. Last time I looked, that was inherent to the design.

Furthermore, the reason we wanted to get as much Parrot code out of C as possible in Lorito is to learn the lessons of JavaScript implementations: the more code written in JavaScript, the faster it can go. Nothing I've seen in Moar suggests it's taken that approach. Maybe it can, but until it does, I don't expect it will improve performance in the large by orders of magnitude.

Hi,

I'm late in replying because sometimes I think I need to build up the necessary know-how in order to give an adequate answer.

Unfortunately this often leads to silently starving threads, so here an emergency before time-out response. ;-)

> but why do I need to elaborate?

You can't expect us - the general public - to know the detailed discussions of Perl6's genesis.

If you claim it's not easily possible in the future , then it's appropriate to list arguments.

The opposing side can counter this with other arguments. That's how scientific discussions work.

> Why? What's changed in the design since 2011-2013?

Again I don't know, I have to rely on experts exchanging arguments which I can decompose into bits I understand.

You've done this now, at least partially°. Thanks.

Once I find the time I'll try to read up on

• NQP
• Moar
• Rakudo
• Lorito
• Parrot
• JS's internal model
to have a better understanding.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery FootballPerl is like chess, only without the dice}

°) you could also have had a look into the videos and enlighten us how these concepts collide with your POV.