comment on

This may be ancient history, but I'm curious: why was the original decision made to implement Perl 6 with something fancy like Parrot instead of a simpler approach like YAP6 takes?

In hindsight, would it have been wiser to just take the approach that YAP6 takes?

I recently read a Steve Yegge blog post where he mentions actually liking Perl 6 (he's not exactly a Perl 5 fan), but lost interest 6 years ago. That's a very long time in internet years. Could Perl 6 have gotten here (or could it get here) faster if a simpler plan for the implementation had been chosen?

Is it possible that Parrot is a bigger bite than anyone can actually chew, and it could be dropped in favor of a simpler Perl 5 -style approach that would get us a Perl 6 -only Perl 6 implementation much sooner than anyone expects? Or is that a nightmare scenario that would bring the community to rack and ruin?

In reply to Re: YAP6: A p5 approach to p6 by flexo
in thread YAP6: A p5 approach to p6 by ruoso

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


Just another Perl shrine
	PerlMonks