Re^5: What's wrong with Perl 6?

I cant figure out why you think such an attitude is in Perl 6's best interests.

If it isnt written in C (or perhaps C++) its going to find itself at a disadvantage competing in the marketplace with languages that are.

IMO if Perl 6 doesnt end up with a C implementation it will end up as one of many interesting but ultimately trivial footnotes in the history of computing.

And that not that an outcome that I would like to see.

---
$world=~s/war/peace/g

Comment on Re^5: What's wrong with Perl 6?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: What's wrong with Perl 6? by chromatic (Archbishop) on May 14, 2007 at 15:12 UTC
If it isnt written in C (or perhaps C++) its going to find itself at a disadvantage competing in the marketplace with languages that are. C# and Java seem to be doing just fine, and Ruby's taking off despite being written in C and very slow. I don't understand your reasoning.	[reply]
Re^7: What's wrong with Perl 6? by jdporter (Paladin) on May 14, 2007 at 15:43 UTC
C# and Java seem to be doing just fine Are C# and Java not implemented in "C (or perhaps C++)"? If they are, why do you try to invoke them as counterexamples? A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight	[reply]
Re^8: What's wrong with Perl 6? by chromatic (Archbishop) on May 14, 2007 at 15:48 UTC
Because somehow Parrot (written mostly in C) doesn't count for Perl 6, as far as I understood the post to which I replied.	[reply]
Re^9: What's wrong with Perl 6? by demerphq (Chancellor) on May 14, 2007 at 19:17 UTC
Re^10: What's wrong with Perl 6? by chromatic (Archbishop) on May 14, 2007 at 20:46 UTC


good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW
	PerlMonks