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

All in all, I'd say not having XS is a plus, rather than a minus

Yes, not everyone views XS favourably. That's ok, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise.
But that's not my view.

Cheers,
Rob

Comment on Re^6: 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^7: It has been suggested to rename Perl 6 in order to boost its marketing potential. Which name would you prefer? by Arunbear (Prior) on Jul 17, 2018 at 14:25 UTC
For those of us willing to be convinced, why is no-XS a minus for Perl6?	[reply]
Re^8: It has been suggested to rename Perl 6 in order to boost its marketing potential. Which name would you prefer? by syphilis (Archbishop) 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	[reply]


No such thing as a small change
	PerlMonks