»ö« | perl6.org/ | nopaste: paste.lisp.org/new/perl6 | evalbot usage: 'perl6: say 3;' or rakudo: / pugs: / std: , or /msg p6eval perl6: ... | irclog: irc.pugscode.org/ | UTF-8 is our friend!
Set by wolfe.freenode.net on 30 October 2009.
frettled Phew, I got my last blog entry of the year out. 00:06
Time for bed :)
00:07 kangu_ left
colomon jnthn: o/ 00:08
00:09 soupdragon joined 00:31 ash_ joined 00:35 eternaleye left
colomon www.ioncannon.net/projects/code2009/ 00:40
00:41 rgrau` left 00:42 pmurias left 00:43 eternaleye joined, eternaleye left
s1n colomon: perl is basically MIA 00:54
colomon yes, that's why I posted it.
s1n hmm 00:55
colomon Perhaps I'm very out of the loop, but I have a hard time believing more people are coding in bash than in perl.
00:56 ash_ left
s1n i agree, but i dunno 00:56
if perl5 is more popular than perl6, and perl5 is MIA on that list, i can't help but wonder if perl6 needs a new direction in order to gain attention.....
either that or the "poll" is slanted because it's on twitter :/
(perl is notorious for keeping-it-in-the-family) 00:57
diakopter or, disproportionally fewer perl users use twitter, or even like ganging onto twitter trends/polls
colomon well, and it's the first time I heard of this poll....
s1n i always liked the book sales comparisons
colomon someone just tweated perl, btw. :)
s1n look how big that C slice is :/ 00:58
01:01 racheldaBROWN left 01:04 cognominal left 01:05 eternaleye joined 01:18 jferrero joined 01:19 jferrero left 01:20 jferrero joined, jferrero left 01:24 rachelBROWN joined 01:31 ash_ joined 01:38 rachelBROWN left, rachelBROWN joined 01:40 cognominal joined 01:51 agentzh joined 01:57 ash_ left 02:23 colomon_ joined, colomon left, colomon_ is now known as colomon 02:28 payload left
cognominal rakudo: say ?("\n" ~~ m/<-[\v]>/) 02:43
p6eval rakudo db84bc: 1␤
cognominal rakudo: say ?("\n" ~~ m/<[\v]>/)
p6eval rakudo db84bc: 0␤
cognominal rakudo: say ?("\n" ~~ "\v") 02:44
p6eval rakudo db84bc: 0␤
cognominal ng: say ?("\n" ~~ "\v") 02:45
p6eval ng 4e4d82: 0␤
cognominal ng: say ?("\n" ~~ '\v')
p6eval ng 4e4d82: 0␤
cognominal is \n a vertical whitespace? 02:47
I probably need sleep 02:48
02:58 rachelBROWN left, rachelBROWN joined
cognominal std: say ?("\n" ~~ "\v") 02:59
p6eval std 29424: ===SORRY!===␤Unrecognized backslash sequence: '\v' at /tmp/ipOw8AHQ61 line 1:␤------> say ?("\n" ~~ "\v⏏")␤FAILED 00:01 108m␤
cognominal std: say ?("\n" ~~ m/\v/) 03:00
p6eval std 29424: ok 00:01 107m␤
cognominal std: say ?("\n" !~ m/\v/)
p6eval std 29424: ===SORRY!===␤Unsupported use of !~ to do negated pattern matching; in Perl 6 please use !~~ at /tmp/ICAyMSfvyQ line 1:␤------> say ?("\n" !~ ⏏m/\v/)␤FAILED 00:01 106m␤
cognominal std: say ?("\n" !~~ m/\v/)
p6eval std 29424: ok 00:01 108m␤
03:24 Student left 03:30 synth left 03:31 gbacon left, eternaleye left 03:34 synth joined 03:38 eternaleye joined, eternaleye left 03:41 Chillance left 03:54 justatheory left 03:59 justatheory joined 04:02 Baggio_ joined
TimToady cognominal: ~~ does not force its right hand argument to be a regex, so ~~ '\v 04:04
would be a string match
but \n should be matched by \v, oui
radkudo: say ?("\n" ~~ /\v/) 04:05
rakudo: say ?("\n" ~~ /\v/)
p6eval rakudo db84bc: 1␤
TimToady I don't think rakudo knows \x inside of character classes though
04:10 Baggio__ joined, justatheory left 04:15 SmokeMachine joined 04:27 Baggio_ left 04:43 jql joined 05:03 jql left 05:04 jql joined
pugs_svn r29425 | diakopter++ | Some thoughts, opinions, and challenges for TimToady, obra, et alii. svn.pugscode.org/pugs/docs/sprixel/notes.txt 05:07
05:09 cognominal left
pugs_svn r29426 | diakopter++ | fix typos and remove UTF-8 BOM 05:11
05:12 cognominal joined, c9s_ joined, c9s_ left, SmokeMachine left 05:19 PacoLinux left 05:23 Baggio__ left 05:30 PacoLinux joined 05:48 Exodist left 05:51 meppl joined 05:56 chromatic joined
chromatic May I disagree strongly with those opinions, diakopter? 05:57
diakopter chromatic: yes 05:59
please
chromatic C2 is infeasable, especially if you consider Mono, V8, and GHC as backends. 06:00
Mono is right out.
V8... you'd need someone besides Daddy Googlebucks supporting it for that to work.
GHC... now you conflict with C4.
That leaves... well, Factor is a possibility, except for C4. 06:01
Possibly also C1.
diakopter I thought mono had the items in C2 06:02
chromatic Mono has patent concerns.
Game over.
diakopter it does? 06:03
chromatic Unless you get it from Novell directly, Microsoft's patent agreement does not apply.
06:03 _jaldhar joined
diakopter hm 06:03
chromatic TPF will never (as long as it has competent legal representation) bless a Perl 6 implementation which primarily targets such an encumbered backend. 06:04
I can quibble with the need for C2b-e for 6.0.0 as well. 06:05
diakopter www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellc...light.mspx 06:08
“End User” means an entity or individual that uses for its intended purpose a Moonlight Implementation obtained directly from Novell or through a Distributor. 06:09
"Distributors" means resellers, recipients, and distributors to the extent they are authorized (directly or indirectly) by a Party or its Subsidiaries to resell, license, supply, distribute or otherwise make available Party Implementations (whether the resale, licensing, supplying, making available, or distribution is on a stand-alone basis, or on an OEM basis as bundled with hardware or other software of the reseller or distributor, or otherwise).
chromatic "to the extent originally provided by Novell during the Term and, if applicable, the Extension or Post-Extension Period, but only to the extent such Moonlight Implementations are used as Conforming Runtimes."
lwn.net/Articles/367878/ 06:10
diakopter clicks
chromatic That's also only for Moonlight, not Mono in general.
www.the-source.com/2009/12/more-on-...-covenant/ 06:11
06:13 eternaleye joined
diakopter oh, hmm; yeah, lots of limitations there on the out-of-browser moonlight 06:14
chromatic That's not even considering technical considerations, such as supporting CPS. 06:15
diakopter I shouldn't have mentioned the new moonlight agreement; it's unrelated. This is much more relevant: tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Jul-06.html 06:19
06:22 ChanServ sets mode: -o diakopter
chromatic lwn.net/Articles/341771/ 06:22
06:24 JimmyZ joined
diakopter do you have a particular point from that email you want to highlight/discuss? I haven't read anything damning... 06:26
chromatic Plenty of people who have very picky legal advice find the licensing and promise troublesome. 06:27
You personally may not care, and that's fine. You don't have much to lose. 06:28
I run a business and I'm not going to touch it. 06:29
06:29 Baggio_ joined 06:30 patspam joined
diakopter I feel hurted by your comparison of yourself to me and your claim that I'm not worth very much, but I can continue to refrain from being overly defensive about my opinions. 06:30
chromatic I don't mean any offense; I mean as an individual developer you're not a target. 06:32
As an individual developer, I wouldn't be a target either.
As a business owner, I have a lot more risk.
diakopter ok, but that doesn't mean I don't have interest in an entity with limited liability 06:33
chromatic So do I, but that's my livelihood, and I'm not going to risk it for a JIT that exists today.
I strongly suspect TPF doesn't want to put other business owners in a similar situation. 06:34
diakopter perhaps I need a primer in this "TPF's blessing" concept 06:35
I may have had an idea of what it means sometime in the past.... but not today
chromatic The theory goes that TPF will strongly suggest that you use a specific implementation of Perl 6. 06:36
That's what you're arguing for in your proposal anyway.
diakopter I argued for strong leadership from Larry
chromatic I'm saying that I doubt TPF will want to take on the legal responsibility of holding the copyright for and distributing an implementation of Perl 6 built on a backend for which the legal rights to redistribution and patent licensing are in question. 06:37
diakopter TPF doesn't need to hold the copyright for (nor distribute) any code if it doesn't want to 06:38
06:39 justatheory joined
chromatic Okay, so you want Larry to make a plan that TPF won't support. 06:39
That to me does not seem to reduce fractiousness. 06:40
06:40 justatheory left
chromatic That is, again, barring any and all technical concerns about the plan (which remain almost completely unchanged since the initial analysis leading up to Parrot in 2001). 06:42
diakopter point taken (about fractiousness); I don't see why TPF needs to be in the endorsing business, but okay. if it wants to be fractious against Larry, I guess it has that right. 06:43
chromatic TPF holds the trademark on Perl and the copyright on Rakudo. 06:44
Who do you suggest should hold both, if not TPF?
diakopter I don't think TPF should transfer them..
why would it need to? 06:45
chromatic Who's going to hold the copyright on this mythical new implementation of Perl 6 then?
diakopter the authors?
chromatic How does that help the community? 06:46
diakopter as opposed to (who else are you suggesting should own it)?
chromatic TPF
diakopter how does it help the community for TPF's name to be in the copyright slot in the source code files, instead of a reference to a list of authors? 06:47
chromatic TPF has legal resources to maintain the copyright, maintain a list of copyright assignments, and pursue copyright action pro and con.
diakopter is that how Perl 5's copyright is managed? 06:48
chromatic Yep.
diakopter oh
chromatic It is now.
That's the standard approach to open source/free software community governance. 06:49
06:51 patspam left
diakopter I guess I don't see the benefit of "maintain the copyright, maintain a list of copyright assignments, and pursue copyright action pro and con." What does that mean for Joe Fellow who submits a patch to, say, Gnome 06:54
chromatic That depends on the size of the patch, for one, and (possibly) the nature of the change. 06:55
In general, Joe Fellow has to be able to claim 1) unfettered copyright over the patch for the purpose of 2) licensing (or transferring the copyright, depending on the contributor agreement) the copyright to the appropriate foundation. 06:56
diakopter how does it depend on those things? must Joe assign copyright to anyone?
chromatic No, but it's 1) difficult to redistribute while disclaiming conflicting copyrights or licensing concerns (such as patents) and 2) protect the community's copyright without it. 06:57
06:57 SmokeMachine joined
diakopter I don't understand those last 2 msgs. 06:59
diakopter tries harder
chromatic If you want to distribute it under an OSI-approved license, there can't be restrictions on redistribution -- such as uncertain copyright claims or patent claims. 07:00
An OSI-approved license is useless if recipients can't themselves redistribute it. 07:01
diakopter tries even harder 07:02
(sorry :/)
chromatic If only Novell can distribute Mono under Microsoft's patent licensing, no one else can redistribute Mono without taking on patent risk. 07:03
The same applies for copyright.
diakopter the community promise doesn't mention novell
chromatic It doesn't have to; to my knowledge no one outside of Microsoft, Novell, and their legal representation have seen their secret agreement. 07:04
diakopter what secret agreement? I'm referring to www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx 07:05
chromatic Microsoft and Novell have their own agreement; Miguel talked about it.
diakopter oh.. I suppose that might refer to the non-ecma portions 07:07
chromatic Likely, but we can only speculate until we read it. 07:08
diakopter but those certainly aren't relevant to me
the parts covered by the community promise are the ones that matter
chromatic And the legal advice from several attorneys with experience in this field is "Don't rely on the community promise." 07:09
diakopter I might be interested in the specifics of that advice 07:10
chromatic It's in the LWN link I provided most recently. 07:11
diakopter I don't see attorneys' names mentioned there.. 07:12
chromatic I don't either. 07:14
diakopter I mean, it says "we"
chromatic I assume it's the FSF's legal representation.
diakopter "Since we published Richard's article .." but I don't know who comprise the "we"
chromatic That's the FSF.
diakopter looks like Donald Robertson is the only person whose bio claims graduation from a law program on the FSF Staff and Leadership pages 07:18
chromatic How about an SFLC post then? 07:20
www.softwarefreedom.org/blog/2009/j...e-patents/
07:23 synth left
diakopter reads 07:24
07:31 szabgab left
diakopter confused further; Bradley Kuhn isn't a lawyer, and this essay is a cross-posting from his blog, not one of the SFLC's legal opinions/publications 07:31
chromatic Bradley works for SFLC.
His job is the legal protection of free software. 07:32
diakopter ok, but why haven't the licensed attorneys at the SFLC commented on the Community Promise in an official capacity? I'd be very glad to know their opinion if/when they do. 07:37
chromatic Because no attorney is going to give specific legal advice to anyone other than a client in a very specific situation. 07:38
diakopter www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/ links to www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2...p-gpl.html 07:40
I think the critique on osp-gpl.html is quite helpful 07:41
I wish they'd write one on the community promise
chromatic They might do so. 07:42
mberends Shouldn't this pugs/docs/sprixel/notes.txt be posted elsewhere as individual points for discussion? It looks too opinionated and transient to belong permanently in a (mainly) technical repository. Mailing lists might be more appropriate. 07:46
(fwiw, I'm more optimistic than the author about the state of Perl 6) 07:48
chromatic I think you're optimistic in different ways.
mberends the recent "business case" discussion looked on the bright side 07:50
diakopter did it? 07:53
mberends businesses like dependable timescales, Perl 6 regards completeness as more important than deadlines, so that is less good for business 07:54
07:54 szabgab joined
diakopter let's be precise with terminology and not let individuals hide behind the "Perl 6" moniker 07:56
I don't mean it's best to be that precise *all the time*, just in this case :P 07:57
chromatic If you want to be precise, businesses who've provided jack and squat to Perl 6 development can want what they want. 07:58
mberends the current businesses investing in Perl 6 (even myself) are venture capitalists, because the potential reward is great but definitely not soon.
diakopter erm 07:59
mberends "Perl 6" is fine as a moniker, just like C. It's what I hope my customers will want, one day not too far away. 08:02
diakopter to be more clear, I meant "who regards completeness as more important than deadlines"? 08:03
chromatic Are you volunteering yourself as project manager or Larry as project manager? 08:05
mberends diakopter: sorry. "completeness" was my personal aggregate of the opinions stated by people active in #perl6. 08:07
PerlJam diakopter: why do you think Perl 6 is in danger of "ruining its brand"? 08:08
mberends the perl6advent blog has successfully promoted the brand 08:11
diakopter chromatic: I wasn't volunteering anyone. I was opining that Larry was best suited for the task of chopping down the spec to something manageable; I also believe he is uniquely positioned for the various interactions necessary to figure out best how to make the spec achievable
chromatic You assume he doesn't think that the spec is both manageable and achievable now with any of the current implementations in your time frame. 08:12
diakopter correct. The time frame is the issue on which I'm trying to push (hard). 08:13
mberends +1 to chopping down the spec to make implementations more feasible
Perl6-lite would suit me fine over 90% of the time 08:14
chromatic Here's betting Larry defaults to Patrick and Jonathan and their plan for Rakudo Star.
PerlJam indeed.
chromatic There's your timeframe and your spec. 08:16
What's next?
diakopter unfortunately I doubt anyone would take that bet
PerlJam diakopter: why?
colomon Even as I'm having growing doubts about Rakudo Star, I sure can't see how publicly disavowing it now would help Perl 6's PR.
diakopter PerlJam: "take that bet" meaning take chromatic's offer of the bet (and bet against chromatic) 08:17
08:17 colomon left
mberends colomon, are your doubts based on schedule slippage or something else? 08:17
ah, missed colomon :( 08:18
JimmyZ +1 to chopping down the spec to make implementations more feasible too
diakopter I don't think Rakudo Star should be disavowed.. I don't think any of the impls should be disavowed... there are _wonderful_ lessons learned and excellent best practices built up in them, esp Rakudo
chromatic I notice the lack of the words "code" and "reuse". 08:19
diakopter :)
not char-for-char, much, probably not, no, imho.
but certainly in form and structure and naming
and algorithms
chromatic In other words, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you're suggesting that to deliver a Perl 6 implementation sooner than is possible with Rakudo, the right approach is to start over, code-wise, on a new platform. 08:20
Or at least a different platform.
With which the current contributor base has far less practical experience.
PerlJam (see netscape)
chromatic And on which there are currently no credible implementations even in part.
diakopter if I may clarify/backpedal/hedge a tad, I do believe that achieving solidarity and focus is more important than switching VMs/compiler-chains 08:21
chromatic Also regarding which the technical risks are... well, let's call them, charitably, unknown..
diakopter but I think the spec is what prevents the solidarity/focus 08:22
PerlJam diakopter: you just want all of the implementors pulling in the same direction on the same implementation?
diakopter: I don't think the spec has anything to do with it at all.
diakopter I don't just/merely want that.. but it is slightly more crucial than reevaluating VMs/compiler-chains 08:23
PerlJam Unless you think that one or more implementations are actaully implementing something that would not be essential in this new, proposed, reduced spec. 08:24
chromatic Even so, that would require that contributor time, effort, ability, and interest is completely fungible.
diakopter chromatic: re "sooner than is possible with Rakudo", no, that's not what I was/am suggesting 08:27
08:27 colomon_ joined
chromatic Then I'm confused. 08:27
PerlJam colomon_: <@mberends> colomon, are your doubts based on schedule slippage or something else?
(I'm interested in what you think too :)
diakopter I'm saying that the implementations _need_ to drive the spec a lot more, and in order for that to occur, the spec needs to be dialed back significantly 08:28
PerlJam diakopter: why? 08:29
diakopter (as you pointed out, I'm assuming it's unachievable in my time frame)
PerlJam diakopter: how do we know what to "dial back" if we don't have people trying to implement it?
colomon_ mberends, PerlJam: I'm worried about ng's schedule slippage, Rakudo's speed (both versions), and Rakudo's stability.
chromatic Are you saying that you believe it's important to release something labeled Perl 6.0 in a specific time frame? 08:30
PerlJam colomon_: The first two I guess I can understand, but not the third. Could you elaborate?
colomon_ And I guess, in particular I'm worried that the slippage makes it harder to deal with the other two issues in the R* timeframe.
diakopter chromatic: yes. I haven't always believed that, but I do now. 08:31
colomon_ PerlJam: My experience with both ng and master is that they are very prone to crashing under modest loads.
chromatic That's a very different assertion than what I read from the document.
diakopter it would be a very helpful clarification to the document 08:32
colomon_ PerlJam: It looks to me like there are at least two serious Heisenbugs.
PerlJam colomon_: parrot related or more likely rakudo's fault?
(or still unknown?)
colomon_ PerlJam: examples would be the random spectest crashes in ng, and master's difficulties with the mandelbrot script.
PerlJam: Still unknown. 08:33
PerlJam colomon_: so ... when ng lands in the next couple of weeks, that seems like a good thing to focus on :)
colomon_ PerlJam: I haven't been waiting for it to land. :) 08:34
PerlJam: But I'm not really deep enough into it to be able to debug things at that level, so I've mostly just been passing on stack traces and the like whenever I can.
PerlJam colomon_: BTW, the (lack of) speed issue tends to bug me too.
diakopter chromatic: I think a clarification like that would clarify what I mean by "salvage the brand" 08:35
PerlJam diakopter: so ... perl 6 is now "critically late" rather than just "late"? 08:36
colomon_ PerlJam: I think Rakudo needs to be aboue 100x faster to be viable. I suspect that is completely doable, I'm just worried we're rapidly running out of time to do it before April.
PerlJam diakopter: why?
diakopter: or, why do you think that time is so important now?
mberends colomon_: thanks. About speed, rakudo and parrot authors regularly show (with evidence) that their part is performing fine, and that the other part (rakudo/parrot) must be causing slowness.
chromatic Well, fine-ish. 08:37
colomon_ mberends: they're probably both right, too. :)
chromatic Rakudo has to create a lot of ExceptionHandlers, for example. Expensive.
diakopter PerlJam: I'm sorry if it appears I'm disregarding your many direct questions to me; I'm not.. I'm still formulating replies (hopefully you'll stick around until I can finally reply :D)
chromatic Parrot's GC really ought to be able to recycle garbage much faster.
PCC is still slower and heavier than it ought to be. 08:38
PMCProxy is a hack.
Object attributes are expensive.
... but I also distrust Jonathan's PMC mutation code.
colomon_ mberends: Anyway, what I was trying to say was that even with my worries, I think the best approach is to blast ahead with ng / Parrot and try to get all that fixed by April. 08:39
08:39 iblechbot joined
mberends agreed 08:39
PerlJam diakopter: no worries
diakopter colomon_: I'd agree with that, but I don't see anywhere close to the resource availability levels required
PerlJam diakopter: (and if I'm not around to see answers, I can always see the channel logs :)
chromatic Fix the resource level problem and you fix most problems. 08:40
mberends general question: what do people think about a two tier (small/large) spec, perhaps along the lines of Java Standard and Enterprise Editions? 08:43
PerlJam mberends: I have no idea what a "small" perl 6 spec would look like. Most of it seems essential to me (save the things I don't quite understand :) 08:44
chromatic sleeps
08:44 chromatic left
diakopter the length of S05 and S26 make the diakopter weep 08:45
lengths
08:45 eternaleye left
colomon_ It seems to me that Rakudo represents a sort of de facto small perl 6 spec already. 08:45
diakopter don't get me wrong, I'm definitely in awe of the authors' brilliant spec-writing ability, when I read them. 08:46
PerlJam colomon_: good point.
mberends I don't have a clue either, that's really why I'm asking ;)
colomon_ (For instance, Rakudo's 32-bit Int versus the spec's bigint + Int32, Int64, etc.)
diakopter but, ... (re S05,S26) they're overblown to high heaven. 08:47
PerlJam colomon_: but no one has documented Rakudo's spec as how it differs from "Perl 6"
diakopter colomon_: an excellent point.
colomon_ PerlJam: True. But I'm not sure I see the benefit of explicitly spec'ing the small version. 08:48
If anything, I'd be more in favor of dumping some of the more complicated bits from the spec.
PerlJam Hmm.
Such as?
diakopter recalls the synopses that bringeth the tears 08:49
colomon_ Well, the Int32, Int64, etc types come to mind. :) 08:50
mberends It would be great to have a Debian style popularity-contest of language features that people actually use. Hey, that could be added to github.com/masak/gge/blob/master/COOLTHINGS 08:51
colomon_ Looking at the Rat spec, for instance, is enough to bring tears to my eyes. There are so many types there, almost all completely irrelevant for any practical purpose I can see.
diakopter do you mean perlcabal.org/syn/S32/Numeric.html#Rat ? 08:52
colomon_ diakopter: no, it's in S02 or S03. give me a minute.
PerlJam colomon_: so ... remove them from the spec ;) 08:53
diakopter heh
colomon_ I'd be happy if it was just Int which defaults to sensible int size for the platform and auto-upgrades to bignum if needed, and Rat and FatRat.
mberends there's a lot of Perl 6 language I've not used (yet). Maybe because I don't know enough about them. traits, parameterized types, feed operators to name a few
PerlJam you haven't used feed operators because no one has implemented them :)
diakopter well, 'cept pugs 08:54
PerlJam but pugs implemented something slightly different IIRC
colomon_ Ack, I don't see a handy nearby link, but if you look at S02, search for FatRat, and then back up a few paragraphs, you'll see what I'm talking about.
diakopter oh 08:55
colomon_ uint64 and rat64 and rat8....
diakopter pugs todo 'feed operators do not work'
hmm, oh
well, no 08:56
08:56 Baggio_ left
diakopter only some of them are TODOd that way 08:56
colomon_ I don't know why all the types are there, so I'm loath to just delete them myself. But I suspect 99.9% of Perl 6's potential users would not ever notice they were "missing".
diakopter hah 08:57
there are plenty of mailing list email messages that might protest
colomon_ diakopter: I have to admit I have the vague impression that there are a handful of insane but vocal people on the mailing list. :) 08:58
PerlJam I like the complex type myself. Mainly because I've yet to run across a platform that had "native complex numbers" :)
diakopter colomon_: hee
yeah, fsvo "native" 08:59
PerlJam colomon_: then let them re-add it to the spec and implement it!
colomon_ PerlJam: Hmmm....
PerlJam "These types were deleted from the spec because they don't seem to be useful enough, if you disagree, please provide an implementation when you re-add them to the spec"
colomon_ I think having Rat and Complex is a Big Deal. 09:00
diakopter plz understand, I was *not* the advocate of folks other than Larry nulling spec spans
colomon_ I just don't think we need rat8 and a form of Complex which allows seamless internal polar coordinate usage. (The latter has blissfully stayed only on the mailing list as far as I know.) 09:01
PerlJam diakopter: Why do you place so much on Larry? Do you think if he blesses something that it'll be accepted by the community? Do you think that Larry is the only one who can do this?
diakopter dunno. Yes. Yes (maybe I'm wrong). 09:02
diakopter goes back to the yellow hilites from PerlJam above
PerlJam> diakopter: why do you think Perl 6 is in danger of "ruining its brand"? Let me define the terms better, first. 09:03
colomon_ Heck, forget the hassle of implementing them in the compiler, just think of the hassle of testing all those cases!
PerlJam diakopter: excellent! After I asked that one I thought about asking for a definition of "brand" :) 09:04
colomon_ imagines a spectest which takes days to run, even with 100x faster Perl 6....
diakopter brand is the aggregate market perception (and the self-referential "aggregate perception of the aggregate perception", and so on) of a particular meme (or trademark)... the ideas/thoughts/emotions/memories that are triggered when such a meme is invoked (communicated). 09:05
PerlJam colomon_: Moore's Law is still in effect. 09:06
colomon_: oh, and Perl 6 is a 100-year (or more) language :) 09:07
diakopter it's all fun and games until someone gets hurt.
or cries wolf.
but seriously, the Perl 6 brand is "smug whimsy, personified" 09:08
whimsicality isn't all bad 09:09
lolcode is pure whimsy
PerlJam smug?
diakopter "highly self-satisfied" sez Webster 09:10
PerlJam Are you specifically talking about Camelia, or just in general?
diakopter both
PerlJam okay
diakopter well, Camelia doesn't project smugness, nor whimsy, really
so, I take that back 09:11
colomon_ errr... so you're worried that if something isn't done soon, Perl 6's brand of "smug whimsy, personified" will be seriously threatened?
PerlJam colomon_: no, he's saying that's what's wrong and needs fixing. 09:12
colomon_: before it's too late.
diakopter let's run through some scenarios
hejki perl6 is like lady gaga - monoclinous in a good way
mberends Camelia is not smug, but the act of choosing her was 09:13
hejki "self-sufficient" :)
diakopter PerlJam> colomon_: oh, and Perl 6 is a 100-year (or more) language :)
PerlJam: it took me a minute to decide you definitely weren't making a pun about the duration of implementation
PerlJam perhaps we doth pun too much then 09:14
:)
09:14 kaare joined, cognominal left
diakopter had to look up "monoclinous" 09:14
09:15 kaare is now known as Guest5971, partisan left
colomon_ is going to try to go back to bed, will backlog in the morning... 09:15
diakopter hahaha
09:15 hicx174 left
hejki :) 09:15
well if i refer to lady gaga you could reason the meaning of 'monoclinous' :)
diakopter only thing I've seen of lady gaga was some youtube video of her performing a piano song before she got fame 09:16
well, and some SNL skit with a balloon outfit
hejki lady gagas hermaphroditism is one of the favorite modern memes
diakopter oh; I didn't know that one. I must make a mental note to visit 4chan more often :P 09:17
09:17 pmurias joined, hicx174 joined
diakopter (kidding, I won't) 09:17
hejki :P 09:18
PerlJam diakopter: I don't see the act of choosing Camelia as smug really (though Larry has occasionally seemed smug on #perl6) 09:19
diakopter scenario 1: R* is released on parrot 2.4; it's cool; some people use it; programming.reddit.com shows some microbenchmarks; some people get their feelings hurt.
(not end of story) 09:20
and it showcases some of the unique features of Perl 6...
but it doesn't have "use v5;"
so it's ignored entirely by Perl 5 users, which means everybody. Why use Perl 6 when you need to also be using Perl 5? 09:21
put yourself your Larry's shoes when he wrote Synopsis 1 09:23
(or even Apocalypse 1)
PerlJam needs to get some sleep now 09:24
09:27 PerlJam left, PerlJam joined
diakopter PerlJam: We have the sum of $25,000,000 USD we made from some Oil deal that we want you to help us to receive. Since we are working here on Official capacity we cannot keep this funds hence my contacting you. 09:28
some Oil deal
anyway, think about the use cases for Perl 6 09:29
what are they?
mberends bash++
a PHP replacement 09:30
diakopter In your answer, you must explicitly account for the questions "why would I use Perl 6 when I have ____ that has been stable [ish/enough] for 10-20 years now?"
where "you must" means "please" 09:31
mberends grammars position Perl 6 as an awesome test manipulator
diakopter (I'm trying to nail down exactly what does Perl 6 provide as a unique offering)
mberends *text, gah 09:32
diakopter (besides edutainment for #perl6)
mberends if it can be implemented successfully, automatic multicore/multithreading 09:33
09:34 Su-Shee joined
Su-Shee good morning 09:34
pmurias diakopter: just read svn.pugscode.org/pugs/docs/sprixel/notes.txt
mberends hi Su-Shee, you're entering a New Year debate about the past and future of Perl 6 09:35
diakopter pmurias: also, there's lots of discussion here
to backlog
Su-Shee mberends: :)
mberends: well I have my own agenda (which isn't really hidden though :) 09:36
pmurias diakopter: you suggest using ocaml, that is wrong, ocaml is crap ;)
diakopter Su-Shee: what's your agenda (I don't know it)
pmurias: :)
Su-Shee diakopter: "web", "information processing/data mining/social physics/mashups" (don't know how to put this stuff in one spiffy keyword), GUI prototyping 09:37
09:37 partisan joined
Su-Shee diakopter: though I would sign the petition for "system administrators and networking" as well. :) 09:38
well the short form is: I consider Perl 6 my future favorite programming language. 09:39
diakopter mberends: I agree with those you mentioned (grammars, autoparallel). any others? (anyone) 09:41
here's perhaps a better question:
in which of the programming-language-choice cases does Perl 6 wish to compete? 09:42
mberends at a lower level, the Perl 5 features must continue do be delivered: glue functionality, huge module library
Su-Shee diakopter: you mean stuff like "I want it functional as Lisp and fast as C and CPANish as Perl5 and the most shiny OO ever invented?" ;)
diakopter Su-Shee: yes, the Synopses. 09:43
::)
:)
Enterprise apps (Java, .Net, Ada, C/C++), not a chance. needs huge corporate/govt backing. 09:44
Su-Shee besides huge module library I want back the great tradition of exceptional documentation.
diakopter: let's try it anyway. enterprise needs change as well. 09:45
ah, one part I forgot: everything embedded and user app on little device like. which I suppose could be maybe nicely done with the conjunction of parrot and a minimal rakudo. 09:47
diakopter "minimal rakudo" 09:48
Glue functionality, huge module library 09:49
Perl 5.
mberends diakopter: I'd like to have Perl 6 as programming-language-choice as often as possible, that means for sysadmin, data munging, webservers, text and GUI apps.
pmurias diakopter: Perl 6 is intended to be a better Perl 5
diakopter AHA
finally someone came right out and said it; thank you :) 09:50
Su-Shee pmurias: that's where I see it, yes.
diakopter and seconded!
I fully agree that's what it was intended to be
hejki i've found out that lots of perl5 actives whine about the utf8 syntax
which might be a bit fatal for the success of perl6
diakopter hejki: hold that thought 09:51
, but it can't be that (a better Perl 5) at all without Perl 5
I mean, without ALL of Perl 5. 09:52
Su-Shee diakopter: besides speed, scripting perl 5 style like is rather nice.
mberends diakopter: you're just saying that (ALL of Perl 5) 09:54
diakopter mberends: what do you mean?
mberends hopefully lots of P6 code is *not* going to include 'use v5;' 09:55
Su-Shee look, we'll be placing Perl 6 automatically in the right places by actually doing the appropriate projects.
pmurias use DBI:from<perl5> is more likely 09:56
diakopter mberends: but then there will be no Perl 6 software.
Su-Shee no. inacceptable. Perl 6 without a good DBI is unthinkable.
09:57 eternaleye joined
diakopter mberends: what 100,000-person strong army of porters is going to port (let's be honest, fork) much of the CPAN to make Perl 6 versions 09:57
mberends I see the v5 capability as transitional, like 16 bit dos boxes in Windows
diakopter it won't happen
mberends diakopter: we have the early part of 100 years in which to do it ;) 09:58
Su-Shee diakopter: everyone who likes the idea of perl 6 starts a project and scratches an itch.
diakopter exactly
Su-Shee diakopter: you're assuming that those are few people.
diakopter but it's not the "I need to put food on my table" itch
Su-Shee those will come, too. 09:59
diakopter the v5 capability can't be transitional
Su-Shee it's not just p5 folks waiting for a new perl, there's also everyone never used perl5 but coming from python or ruby or something looking into perl6
diakopter excellent; that's another language-choice market 10:00
people starting new projects
10:00 payload joined
Su-Shee well I can tell you that I rather write a p5 project again than using some merge like use this and that from perl5 and sugarcoat it with perl6. 10:00
diakopter (as opposed to people merely "solving problems" or "doing tasks")
mberends Perl 6 source code out-golfs and out-sexes rival languages 10:01
diakopter Su-Shee: but it would take a million person-years to reproduce all the work in Perl 5
10:01 eternaleye left
diakopter to get all those libraries ported 10:01
mberends no no 10:02
Su-Shee diakopter: because you're assuming that you have to port _everything_ which you plainly don't have to.
diakopter *without* the "use from:p5 capability
not even everything
Su-Shee I'm not going to do stuff like use SSL:from<perl5> or use Gtk2:from<whomever>
diakopter just the capabilities mentioned in Programming Perl and Learning Perl
pmurias Su-Shee why not? 10:03
Su-Shee pmurias: why would I use perl 6 then?
diakopter ahah, my point comes to life
mberends first off, the P5 achievement was done with fewer resources and in less time, ans secondly, Perl 6 is a better language in which to re-do such library building. 10:04
Su-Shee and: not all libraries are difficult to do.
diakopter "fewer resources and in less time"?
mberends Su-Shee: you would use a Perl 6 module as such, and not worry whether it internally contained a reference to P5 10:05
diakopter many hundreds of folks over 15-20 years
mberends "a million person-years" ?
diakopter "Perl 6 is a better language in which to re-do such library building" ... maybe. maybe not. maybe it can't possibly be implemented with any efficiency.
Su-Shee mberends: no, I wouldn't. 10:06
diakopter mberends: ok :) 1e6 years was an exaggeration. but anything more than 1e2 is unattainable at current resource levels. 10:07
mberends Su-Shee: do you care whether the Perl 5 modules you use require C?
Su-Shee mberends: I prefer clean breaks over phasing from one version to another. but that's really just my thing.
mberends: yes, I do.
mberends: and I base my decision of usage sometimes on it.
mberends: depends on the project, though. 10:08
mberends so do I :)
Su-Shee mberends: I don't expect a native Gtk Perl :)
mberends I prefer language-pure code where possible, and accept the alternative as a necessity 10:09
Su-Shee mberends: another part is that I personally think that if the Perl 6 community (and I know, I'm really not in the place to say something like this but I say it anyway :) doesn't get important stuff like a nice DBI, it's really not the language for success.
mberends Su-Shee: fully agreed, a well integrated DBI is absolutely essential 10:10
Su-Shee and just mention this: there are a bunch of projects which are actually willing to port their perl 5 modules to perl 6 when it's in a stage where it can be done easily. 10:12
pmurias diakopter: the other thing besides the we shouldn't even consider ocaml, is that your plan requires TimToady to do a lot of stuff 10:13
10:13 LionMadeOfLions left
Su-Shee ocaml?! what would we do with ocaml? 10:13
(besides moving to france)
mberends nothing, it was a mock counterexample
pmurias base our future implementatiuon on it
Su-Shee ah. :)
pmurias: your javascript integration for example is something I really like to see finished. 10:15
diakopter pmurias: you were serious about saying I was suggesting ocaml? 10:16
I said "I could perhaps see an argument for..."
10:16 eternaleye joined
diakopter yes, but ultimately Perl 6 is TimToady's brand 10:17
but, a noisy death of the Perl 6 brand would damage Perl 5
, which (I would argue) is much less of his brand than the many thousands of folks who make their living using his software 10:18
I'm not saying he can't do what he wants, but imho it would be a disservice to let Perl 6 die the death of 90,000 unwritten (and unimplemented) tests 10:19
(because no one has the time/willingness to implement such a complicated language _fully_) 10:20
therefore, to salvage the brand, the spec needs vivisected
sleep, maybe&
pmurias diakopter: if TimToady told you to work on add "use v5" to rakudo instead of working on your fun parser project would you do it? 10:21
* adding
Su-Shee has to buy some stuff or otherwise we'll starve and have no toilet paper. ;) brb 10:22
mberends death is an exaggerated state for any working computer language nowadays. Neither Perl 5 nor Perl 6 are in such danger. We are probably discussing expectations of relative success, market share, mindshare etc. 10:23
Su-Shee perl5 certainly not, no. it's noth dead, but it doesn't seem to be on the rise again either. at least not here. 10:24
mberends pmurias: do you think blizkost is a good start towards rakudo/p5 integration? 10:25
pmurias dunno 10:26
i'm not familiar with rakudo
10:27 pdcawley left 10:39 szabgab left, szabgab joined 10:43 JimmyZ left 10:46 Student joined, Student left 10:51 pdcawley joined 11:09 araujo left 11:12 carlin joined
carlin OHHAI from 2010 :-) 11:13
Su-Shee *hihi*
hejki :D 11:14
11:15 eternaleye left
Su-Shee did you guys had a discussion wether the language gets too complicated and will never be implemented fully or where did the ocaml thing come from? 11:15
11:16 larsen joined 11:17 agentzh left 11:18 carlin left 11:21 pmurias left 11:26 eternaleye joined
mberends Su-Shee: yes it was about the difficulty of implementation. If you check out the pugs repository, the seed document was pugs/docs/sprixel/notes.txt or see today's IRC backlog. I'm deliberately omitting a document URL because I consider many of the statements harmful to Perl in some way, and personally believe we should try to discourage such texts becoming too readily searchable by bots and spiders. 11:59
Su-Shee hm. hmhm. you mean critics would pick their favorite topic then? :) 12:04
mberends yes, kind of 12:05
Su-Shee why not let them?
frettled Nobody's stopping them.
mberends free speech and all that, sure, I've also just written my $0.02 worth 12:06
soupdragon I love perl 6 I don't care what anyone says!!!! 12:07
Su-Shee no, I didn't mean it in the free speech thing.
err, way.
mberends: what are your concerns? 12:08
12:10 pmurias joined, pdcawley left, dbrock left, pugs_svn left, mdxi left, hugme left, Infinoid left, kcwu left, cj left, eternaleye left, SmokeMachine left, zamolxes left, xomas_ left, dukelet0 left, REPLeffect_ left, mtve left, akl left, RichiH left, tomaw_ left 12:11 eternaleye joined, pdcawley joined, SmokeMachine joined, zamolxes joined, xomas_ joined, dbrock joined, RichiH joined, REPLeffect_ joined, cj joined, kcwu joined, mdxi joined, Infinoid joined, pugs_svn joined, akl joined, tomaw_ joined, dukelet0 joined, hugme joined, mtve joined, irc.freenode.net sets mode: +vv pugs_svn hugme, xomas_ left
mberends I learned by running a webserver temporarily at home that it takes only a few hours for a URL posted in our irclog to send spiders after you 4 times a day. I think it's very bad when a significant contributor pours forth emotionally, and less informed observers could easily take the comments out of context. Those less informed people won't read the pugs repo without a URL. 12:12
.oO( where is masak when you really need him? )
 12:14
Su-Shee hm. interesting. 12:17
I could add at least two concerns of my own, but I'm no implementor.
mberends please tell!
12:18 FalseVinylShrub joined
Su-Shee disclaimer: this is totally subjective and derives by my absolutely personal view and wishes what I'd like to see with perl6: 12:18
sometimes I get the feeling, it's all getting way too academic. I don't even understand what half of all p6-related projects actually _do_ and I can't read up on them to decide wether they're important for me or not. 12:19
second: I'm a total pragmatic - I don't care for another really, really cool operator as long I have to essentially trade "a new feature" against (let's stick with this example) DBI. 12:21
which is a feeling I often get.
mberends Su-Shee: I agree on both points. any more? 12:22
Su-Shee on the other hand I'm totally surprised how simple some things are to be implemented. see hejki's file flags for example.
mberends: third, I don't see a clear road ahead. I don't get a feeling of "this is where this is going" 12:23
hejki heh 12:24
the file flags weren't that simple in ng tho ;>
i guess they'll be once the method are properly specifed (like Tene++ said last night)
"method" ~~ * 12:25
Su-Shee mberends: so to my very limited and subjective view, it often feels like "let's implement something cool" instead of "let's implement the basic stuff which each and every programming language supports and what people need to build the so desperately wished for module library" first
hejki: it's not the parrot stuff anymore we took a look at? 12:26
mberends Su-Shee: the third point was at the heart of the earlier discussion, the light at the end of the tunnel looks too distant.
hejki well parrot has S_ISLNK macro in it
BUT
stat doesn't have opcode for that 12:27
in case you meant that scenario
Su-Shee hejki: yes. 12:28
(I think ;)
hejki :)
Su-Shee mberends: I'm really a perl die-hard, I've tried pugs when it came up and I follow every release of rakudo - but I miss a "it's getting there" feeling. and a proper label like "it's going to be an extremely fancy programming language" or "it's the new, improved perl for _all_ of us" - along those lines I feel. 12:30
12:31 mjk joined
mberends Su-Shee: your first point does get addressed automatically over time, I believe. It comes from people implementing and documenting nice applications. 12:31
what is so nice about #perl6 is the lack of barriers, a newbie wanders in and gets suggestions from the main designers and developers. 12:33
hejki true 12:45
a month ago i didn't even have the slightest clue that there were perl6 even on the making
and now i've already submitted couple of patches 12:46
great job! :>
takadonet morning all 13:00
13:03 pmurias left 13:05 pmurias joined 13:08 pmurias left 13:10 adhoc joined
mathw hey 13:13
takadonet mathw: how are you ?
mberends hi mathw
mathw I'm good, and you takadonet? 13:14
takadonet mathw: Good, trying to found out which Test.pm module my bioperl6 is using...
should be the one in my path/to/parrot/ but any changes I do to that Test.pm have no any effect. 13:16
mberends takadonet: try perl6 -e '.say for @*INC' 13:21
rakudo: .say for @*INC
p6eval rakudo db84bc: /home/p6eval/.perl6/lib␤/home/p6eval//p2/lib/parrot/1.9.0-devel/languages/perl6/lib␤lib␤.␤
takadonet bloody hell. Found it! 13:22
mberends++ Thanks man
I was almost there using locate and grep :)
mberends :) nice 13:23
13:30 SmokeMachine left 13:37 cognominal joined, masak joined, REPLeffect_ left
masak oh hai, #perl6 13:37
mberends hai masak 13:38
masak reads svn.pugscode.org/pugs/docs/sprixel/notes.txt
13:38 REPLeffect_ joined
masak I'm having agreements and objections along the way, but I'll save them 'til I'm done reading. 13:39
13:40 pmurias joined
pmurias wonders when will someone publish sprixel/notes.txt on reddit (or some other similarly silly place) 13:41
masak it's definitely reddit material.
mberends please no!
masak it's out of our hands... and besides, it's a clear risk when releasing an open document like this. 13:42
13:43 Baggio_ joined
takadonet who wrote this? 13:43
mberends diakopter
Su-Shee why don't you just go ahead, disable logging for a few hours and discuss it? 13:45
masak :)
I don't see the need for disabling logging...
the notes.txt are civil, and so far I only have civil agreements and objections. 13:46
s/agreements/points of agreement/
mberends there's no need to disable logging, that would ...what masak said
Su-Shee :)
masak Su-Shee: but it conjures up a fun image of nerds bashing each other when the camera's off :P 13:47
ok, here we go.
13:48 mjk left
masak I respect diakopter. I've privmsg'd with him quite a bit lately, and I've come to realize that he's onto something. a couple of somethings, more like it. 13:48
I also resonate with quite a few of the perceived issues in the docuemnt. not all, but many of them. 13:49
I also very much root for Perl 6 and would like to see it widely adopted. that goes without saying.
13:50 FalseVinylShrub left
masak mberends: A3-4 remind me of a few months back when you discussed freezing the specification. 13:50
mberends masak: kinda 13:51
masak my reaction back then was a feeble "no... why?", and I got to really think about the whirlpool model. 13:52
my reaction now is the same, although stronger.
I don't perceive the spec changes as a problem. most often, they're actually helping the implementations get there sooner.
that said, it might be a good idea to freeze the 6.0.0 version of the spec at some point. 13:54
but considering all the (good) change that has been going on in 2009, I don't think 2010 will be the year to freeze the spec. 13:55
I say this as someone with a fair amount of Perl 6 code 'out there', needing to be maintained in the face of Rakudo refactors/behvaiour changes. 13:57
13:57 ruoso joined
pmurias ruoso: hi 13:58
takadonet masak: So you think one more year of flux of the spec is needed before we can freeze it?
masak takadonet: I don't see freezing it as that urgent a goal. so far, and for a while hence, I see keeping the spec mutable as much more beneficial than freezing it. 13:59
pmurias ruoso: how fast is stmmap?
masak it surprised me at first that I think that way, but I do.
it also creates an extremely democratic environment where lowly Perl 6 *users* like myself get a chance to influence the language, if ever so tinily. 14:00
think about how 'succeed'/'proceed' came about as a result of someone complaining in the Advent Calendar's comment system. 14:01
or how preifx:<=> was abolished when szabgab complained about it in a newbie Perl 6 course.
or how &split got its parameters reversed in the dark of the night, and TimToady actually listened and changed his mind when I, omega__ and pmichaud confronted him. :) 14:02
takadonet masak: It seems to me that people (not me) will only start learning a language when it's 'stable'. I started hacking on bioperl6 because I want to start using it at work ASAP
masak takadonet: noted.
I'd say that Perl 6 *is* stable, to a very, very large degree. 14:03
most things discussed in the Advent Calendar were nailed down years and years ago.
takadonet masak: I'm allowed to use any language at work as long as I can justify it. Little hard to do that when bioperl in Perl 5 is the most complete kit for bioinformatics right now
masak: Also that my main project is written in it 14:04
masak the things that are up for debate are largely untested/unimplemented parts of the spec. my point is that I see it as a sign of health, not a sign of pathology, that we dare keep these parts open until we know that they can be implemented and that the implementation is 'satisfactory'.
takadonet agreed 14:05
masak the opposite of doing that is the dreaded "don't look back"/"waterfall" model.
...which I'm now using as a strawman, buhaha.
takadonet hehe
Su-Shee you really want another year of flux and waiting and nyi things? 14:06
masak well, seems to me the alternative is a year of stability and waiting and nyi things.
if so, yes. 14:07
I want the flux.
takadonet nyi?
masak not-yet-implemented.
Su-Shee not yet implemented
14:07 FalseVinylShrub joined
takadonet Hopefully in a year, I should have the main component done of bioperl6 14:08
masak the flux looks like this to me: several entities, the spec, the impls, the spectests and the app cheese are all involved in an intricate dance to find 'agreement' in some higher sense.
freezing the spec would only mean that one of the dancers can't move. 14:09
I don't see that as an advantage.
takadonet what type of music will there be for this dance?
masak now, notes.txt brings up the possible risks of keeping the spec in flux. notably that there's no hard deadline, and what takadonet brings up, that people perceive Perl 6 as "not stable". 14:10
Su-Shee I want a fast and working "core" of perl 6 (core == stuff every programming language nowadays has) so every module developer can really do his/her stuff without nyi basics and I would add "cool features" later.
masak the core is all we've been working on all along. 14:11
14:11 Baggio_ left
takadonet The definition of the core is different for different people 14:11
I think the core is still being work on but is still usable 14:12
masak the size of the community should preferably grow in lock-step with the scope of the available implementation features. 14:16
that's what happened with Pugs. that's what is happening with Rakudo. 14:17
if Elf or Mildew or Sprixel brings some desirable feature to the table that Rakudo doesn't have, they will just as easily participate in the community growth thing.
14:18 Chillance joined
masak I don't see the problem of fracturing among the implementations that diakopter sees at all. 14:18
cognominal my problem with rakudo is it is not clear what is implemented and what is not. Annotated specs would help. 14:20
masak nod.
we had that for Pugs. no-one's spent the tuits to make it work for Rakudo.
I've looked into it. I can see why no-one has done it already. :)
cognominal I expect that once rakudo goes past some critical mass, a lot of [web-based] tools will appear and will help a lot. 14:22
masak aye. working on that. 14:23
cognominal I anticipated some annotated spec ala XML but community based and many integretated tools. 14:24
*anticipate
masak but most importantly, the fractured-implementations image problem, if it is at all a problem (which I doubt), is not an *external* image problem.
people from the outside think Perl 6 == Rakudo, or maybe, if they have a long-term memory or have used Haskell, Perl 6 == Pugs.
a 'most-likely-to-succeed-with-a-concerted-effort implementation vehicle' will select *itself*, just as it has done so far. 14:25
no need for TimToady dictatorially pointing at one particular implementation and saying "I believe that one will be the one to succeed the best". 14:26
cognominal I don't think people care that much, they don't want at least one implementation that has a critical mass. It seems that landing ng will get is close and rakudo star will let the people know. 14:27
s/don't//
*get us
masak yes.
and landing ng is just a (large) part of fulfilling the promises made for April.
so, it's not just willy-nilly, that's my point. it's been part of the plan since at least August. 14:28
longer, if you count the preparation for the Rakudo Star announcement.
takadonet cannot wait for lazy list using gather/take
pmurias masak: what's the hard part of getting the synopsis annotated with passing/not passing markings 14:29
14:29 FalseVinylShrub left
cognominal Once critical mass is attained people will step in to solve parrot problems People don't want to be involved in a project with no clear future. 14:30
masak, how stable (considering stuff is moving under you) are you web stuff? 14:31
*your
14:31 larsen left
masak pmurias: the machinery is there already, tailored for Pugs. the hard part is making the glue work for Rakudo. 14:32
14:34 Student joined
masak cognominal: stable enough. not always fully there in terms of implementation, but often good enough to get a community started. what's lacking is integration, tutorials and packaging. 14:34
14:34 Student left
cognominal you got web sockets? :) 14:35
masak well, Rakudo does.
Su-Shee rakudo has web sockets?
masak with mberends++' HTTP::Daemon, one can thus run a fully-Perl 6 web stack.
cognominal I mean the new very small web spec
masak it's cool, albeit a bit unstable still.
cognominal: oh, I thought you meant vanilla sockets... 14:36
Su-Shee no, web sockets are the xmlhttprequest replacement essentially.
pmurias masak: one could imagine turning the smartlinks thing into a general tool 14:37
cognominal www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-websockets-20091222/
masak pmurias: if I'm not mistaken, that has been done already on CPAN.
cognominal that's the stuff pushed by the html5 guys and implementated by google in chrome.
masak pmurias: but last time I looked at it, even that module was a bit hardcoded for Pugs.
cognominal At last web programming will be less of a hack. 14:38
Su-Shee cognominal: what I've read, firefox will have it in one of the next versions.
14:38 synth joined
cognominal I guess within weeks everyone but m$ will have it. 14:38
Su-Shee didn't ms want to make ie9 a nice browser again? ;) 14:39
masak last point on notes.txt: speed. all the points under C are really good to have, and I don't see why any implementation should ignore them. but the main contender will be speed, with stability as the obvious companion.
cognominal it is so little and has so far reaching consequences.
pmurias Su-Shee: was it ever a nice browser? ;)
masak 'stability' here meaning 'not crashing and not leaking memory'.
Su-Shee pmurias: I wouldn't know, I know only the quirks I have to handle ;) 14:40
masak I could easily see an implementation overtaking Rakudo in mindshare if it overtakes Rakudo in speed.
and so (I hope), 2010 will be the year of Perl 6 speed.
Su-Shee cognominal: did you look into DOM storage? that's the next important thing besides web sockets 14:41
cognominal With the Android and the iPhone, and people browing the web from phone, ie will soon become history. I wish flash too, but that's wishfull thinking.
Su-Shee cognominal: I so very much hope your crystal ball is right :) 14:42
cognominal Su-Shee, I am aware of webclient side sql based stuff, but I did not look into it.
Su-Shee cognominal: it's essentially enough space to stuff sessions appropriately into the clieant instead of in your database. 14:43
cognominal Kill flash would do so much against global warming...
On my mac, my ventilator run most of the time because runaway flash plugins. 14:45
Ho, and today, because looping in a zero-width rule... I wish the rule compiler would warn of that possibility :) 14:46
masak cognominal: me too. 14:48
cognominal: been thinking of putting that in GGE. 14:49
cognominal GCE? 14:51
masak it's a grammar engine of mine.
colomon_ is finally caught up with #perl6. Yay! 14:52
masak a port of PGE from PIR to Perl 6.
colomon_ masak's dead right in terms of speed and stability, I think. 14:54
masak there are some apps you can use without great speed. Perl 6 will still be a really nice experience for those. 14:56
colomon_ I mean, sure, there are more features I'd like to have, but if we had the capabilities of Rakudo ng + master and it was 100x faster and stable, that would be a perfectly fine Perl 6 implementation for me.
masak even a more slimmed implementation but with greater speed would interest me.
I mean, I'm used to working around stuff.
slavik would be nice if Perl6 could approach C speed in similar situations. 14:58
colomon_ slavik: it would be nice, of course, but I'd be happy most of the time if it were just 10x slower than Perl 5. 14:59
masak slavik: Andrew Shitov wrote an interesting Perl 6 - to - C++ converter.
slavik: it's fast, but it has the obvious drawbacks of not having a proper object model/re-entrant runtime, etc. 15:00
cognominal I am dabbling with a Perl 6 like syntax to insulate me of the Objective-C crap.
colomon_ masak: where is it now? that might actually be useful for me for $work...
cognominal already 2010 in Japan? 15:02
so says my iPhone clock app 15:03
masak colomon_: talks.shitov.ru/ppt/bapm2009/faster-perl6-en.pdf perl6.ru/p6c 15:04
cognominal it is even 0:34 in Darwin Australia
colomon_ reading that now, masak++
ruoso pmurias, I haven't seen any benchmark
masak seems the source is at svn://svn.shitov.ru/p6c 15:05
15:07 KyleHa joined
colomon_ masak: yup, I downloaded it a couple of minutes ago. 15:12
interesting stuff, lots of boost. 15:13
masak downloads it, too 15:16
it's clearly a cool proof-of-concept. 15:19
also, thanks to its great speed, it's just the kind of wake-up kick we all need. 15:20
15:24 KyleHa left 15:25 colomon_ left 15:26 colomon_ joined
masak backlogs over the interesting discussion between chromatic and diakopter earlier today 15:29
takadonet ohhh 15:30
masak I'm glad I got my comments off my chest before finding it. :) 15:32
pmurias ruoso: i'm thinking of replacing m0ld with a p5 SSA AST 15:36
masak colomon_: I'd be interested to hear more about your doubts about Rakudo Star. myself, I'm worried about ng, but I'm not yet ready to doubt the Rakudo Star deadline. 15:37
colomon_ masak: well, the worry about ng is informing the worry about Rakudo *.
masak fwiw, I'm against chopping down the spec, except in the cases where it makes sense for other reasons than Getting There Sooner(TM). :) 15:38
colomon_ agreed that "getting there sooner" is not a good reason to chop stuff from the spec.
Let me reverse course slightly to make my point. 15:39
masak colomon_: ng was planned to land in November, then December, now January. as long as it lands before April, Rakudo will be able to acheive Stardom to a large extent.
colomon_ masak: I don't think that's right.
masak let's talk about that, then. 15:40
preferably about specific points on the ROADMAP.
15:40 jferrero joined
colomon_ First, I think ng is in extreme danger of missing January, too. 15:41
pmurias ruoso: then even with a simple optimzer we could infer a lot of types and emit much smarter code speeding stuff significantly
masak colomon_: I wouldn't rule that out wither.
s/wither/either/
colomon_ masak: I think the ROADMAP is sort of too specific; I'm more worried about general things.
masak such as?
colomon_ Or rather: I think if we released the current Rakudo master as Rakudo Star, it would be an enormous PR disaster, due to the speed and stability issues. 15:42
ng adds a lot of great stuff, but pushes us back even further on the speed and stability.
masak we've never promised the speed for Rakudo Star.
stability issues are always bad.
but they're also more-or-less out of our hands, being Parrot issues. 15:43
colomon_ we may have never promised speed, but last summer pmichaud definitely told me it was a goal for R*.
masak the Parrot people are dedicated to make Parrot 2.0 stable enough for Rakudo Star.
15:43 patspam joined
colomon_ masak: I don't know how we know they are Parrot issues. 15:43
masak colomon_: Rakudo Star -will- be faster when it comes to parsing. 15:44
colomon_: I know they are Parrot issues.
colomon_: to be clear: Rakudo won't be 100x faster by April. that was never the goal, AFAIU. 15:45
15:45 justatheory joined
masak mberends: it seems that the idea of the COOLTHINGS document was lost between my writing it and your reading it. :/ 15:47
mberends: that document contains a list of things that are specifically blocking on Perl 6 being able to parse Perl 6 code into an AST which it can then introspect. 15:48
colomon_ At this point I'd be ecstatic if Rakudo was 10x faster by April.
masak mberends: thus, a 'Debian style popularity contest of language features' decidedly does not belong on that list...
takadonet Lazy operators is what I really need right now.
masak takadonet: what's lazy operators?
takadonet masak: gather/tale 15:49
take*
colomon_ afk, got to change boy's clothes so he can go out.
masak that's more like a keyword.
15:49 ispeak joined
takadonet in the master branch, they are eager right now correct? 15:49
masak what 'they'? 'gather' and 'take'?
yes, those are eager. just as everything else in the master branch. 15:50
takadonet masak: I'm planning to use gather and take in my grammar when parsing fasta file. Once they are lazy, it will make things a lot easier when implementing SeqIO 15:52
masak nod.
oh, and by the way: a Perl 5-Perl 6 bridge might actually be just as important as the speed requirement, IMHO. 15:53
takadonet break &
15:54 Psyche^ joined
masak in the sense that, if I still get Rakudo's current features in a slow Perl 6 runtime, but with excellent connections back to Perl 5 and CPAN, I would definitely be interested. 15:54
the speed thing wouldn't seem as critical, then.
colomon_ I suppose that's true.
masak this is me agreeing with diakopter, I suppose. both about the speed and the p5p6 bridge. 15:55
colomon_ Errr, it would still be critical, but a different segment of the things I use Perl for would open up if I could seamless use CPAN.
masak but I don't feel the urgency he does, or the need to force things through the spec or TimToady.
colomon_ btw, masak, the more I think about it, the more I think proto is critical for Rakudo *. 15:56
masak oh no :/
colomon_ Not necessarily as something for end users, but I think being able to test Rakduo against a big hunk of current Perl 6 actual code is HUGE. 15:57
masak indeed.
that was the big advantage of Pugs, too.
it drove the spec.
THAT's what I'm interested in doing: -driving- the spec to where it makes the most sense, not freezing it in its current state or in the state it happens to be in at some arbitrary date. 15:58
in fact, I like the flux thing so much, that I'd prefer we do it as long as it's practical. i.e. up until the moment we actually have critical mass. 15:59
...which probably won't be April, for all the good Rakudo Star will bring. 16:00
I mainly see April as bringing in the next stage of early adopters, so that we can adapt to the power of a slightly larger community, and set our sights for the next big feature release, perhaps in April 2011. 16:01
(that's not for me to decide, but you get the idea)
pmurias the spec freeze will propably mean that the new changes will go into 6.0.1 :) 16:04
masak sure. I just don't see the need for spec versioning until we have a reasonably feature-complete implementation.
colomon_ masak: I am entirely with you on the spec thing here. 16:05
masak this is all extremely interesting, but I fear I need to log off until 2010. 16:07
colomon_ I think Rakudo Star also needs to be a sort of "Hey, it's not just vapor ware!" message to the world. Which is why I worry about the speed -- because if it works but is super slow, it will still be considered a toy by most.
I need to log off and run errands.
Happy New Year!
masak \o/ 16:08
16:08 masak left 16:09 Patterner left, Psyche^ is now known as Patterner
rjbs Is R* really supposed to be "not a toy"? Is "toy" just a word to avoid? 16:12
Is anyone expected to start using R* to get his job done? Is it a prototype release, a demonstration of a language that can be used for minor problems to see how things work? 16:13
I think getting the "what this release is" label written just so will be very very important.
16:24 soupdragon left 16:26 SmokeMachine joined
pugs_svn r29427 | pmurias++ | [mildew] start working on adding a ->simplified method to AST 16:32
16:41 plainhao left 16:52 jferrero left 17:00 xomas_ joined 17:08 ispeak left 17:11 SmokeMachine left 17:14 cls_bsd left
diakopter rjbs: pmichaud's journal entry about it 17:15
17:15 Chillance left
Su-Shee rjbs: actually, my company at least hope that R* can be at least used to start converting stuff to p6. 17:16
17:17 cognominal left
rjbs diakopter: I did read it; I mean the announcement and so on that occur when it is released. 17:17
diakopter use.perl.org/~pmichaud/journal/39424 clarifies 17:18
17:19 SmokeMachine joined
diakopter and use.perl.org/comments.pl?sid=43556&cid=70194 17:21
17:21 cognominal joined
diakopter and use.perl.org/comments.pl?sid=43556&cid=69932 17:23
pugs_svn r29428 | pmurias++ | [mildew] change AST nodes to be easier to be SSAfied 17:27
diakopter use.perl.org/comments.pl?sid=43556&cid=70186 is well-written, in my opinion. the responses to its largest points are indequate. 17:28
17:31 colomon__ joined, colomon_ left 17:38 iblechbot left
diakopter inadequate* 17:45
17:50 zloyrusskiy joined 17:52 zloyrusskiy left
pmurias it's a bit true 17:53
in that an small incremental improvement on Perl 5 would be much easier 17:54
diakopter mattw's response that "Rakudo Star is the first time an implementation and the spec have been in a state where anybody can say 'here is some of Perl 6. Have fun with it' and know that people will be able to take it and use it and do useful things with it." is ... wrong. 17:55
"The shiny things are here, they're in the spec, many of them are in the code." how many? 1 out of 10? 17:56
I must admit, the entire reply by mattw reads (to me) like a recruitment/gospel pamphlet from a cult. 17:58
and I agree with furry_marmot's characterizations of pmichaud's post, too. 18:00
but what's most perplexing is pmichaud's reply to it, in which he equates "Perl 6" with "Rakudo" 18:01
furry_marmot: "Perl 6 should have a release date. You prioritize what will go into that release, you implement it, and then you release it." pmichaud: "I believe that this is exactly what the Rakudo Star announcement says we are going to do. It names a release date, says that we will prioritize what will go into that release, gives a criteria by which we will come up with priorities, and says we will focus our efforts over the next eight months on imple 18:02
but furry_marmot wasn't saying an implementation of Perl 6 needs to release a subset implementation without calling it done. 18:05
furry_marmot was saying that there ought to be "finished" milestones, and corresponding specs to those milestones. 18:06
furry_marmot was talking about the release of a language-cum-implementation. 18:09
I agree with pmichaud's statement here: "if "Perl 6 is finished" remains the primary criteria that most people use to decide whether or not to write applications in Perl 6 (and the criteria that we hold ourselves to), then we'll never get there." 18:15
only the "Perl 6 is finished" criterion can trigger the belief that "Perl 6 is finishable" in outsiders. 18:16
(unless the measures in my diatribe/entreaty are taken, as I wrote therein) 18:17
mberends this debating about the meaning of "finished" is so boring. what matters is "usable" as in "production ready" for at least a few production scenarios.
diakopter and it's the "Perl 6 may not be finishable" belief that holds up adoption/experimentation/participation 18:18
18:18 LionMadeOfLions joined
diakopter boring is often necessary/best. 18:18
18:19 payload1 joined, payload left
diakopter "for at least a few production scenarios." but which ones (what I was asking about 8 hours ago)? 18:19
do they advance/improve Perl 5?
Su-Shee yes, they're doing amazing stuff and advancing moose, catalyst and so on. very nice stuff. 18:22
diakopter market uncertainty about the long-term feasbility of something and its growth path is vastly more influential than a tiny proof of concept, even if the proof of concept works.
Su-Shee: I meant "do those production scenarios advance/improve Perl 5?"
the production scenarios to which mberends was referring 18:23
Su-Shee brb
mberends a few productions scenarios would be (repeating) some of sysadmin, data munging, webservers, text and GUI apps. If a Perl 6 implementation can do some of that work approximately as well as other potential language choices, that would be "usable" to some people. It's all very subjective, this word-meaning stuff. 18:31
pugs_svn r29429 | colomon++ | [t/spec] Refudge to dodge crash. 18:33
pmurias diakopter: you meant improve upon? 18:34
mberends if Perl 6 is not to be regarded as "improving" Perl 5 (that's how the Perl 5 community generally sees it), there is no need to compete. Different strokes for different folks. 18:39
diakopter what you mean by "that's how the Perl 5 community generally sees it" is not clear to me 18:40
Tene That question rather bothers me. Is Perl 6 not trying to be better than Perl 5? If so, why bother? If not, in which areas is Perl 6 aiming to be worse than Perl 5? Are there Perl 5 markets that we're not targetting?
18:41 xomas_ is now known as xomas
diakopter Tene: exactly my point. 18:41
(it can't strive to be better than Perl 5; it's an impossible task. it can only strive to add to it (to "improve upon it" by extensions)) 18:42
Tene ... it can't? what? Perl 5 is an unsurpassable maximum goodness?
diakopter no, I mean, it can't be a "replacement" for Perl 5 (and be better at it) 18:43
Tene Okay, I think I get what you're saying. Not sure I agree with you. 18:44
mberends the dialogs between masak and mst have shown two languages and communities, each with lots of merit and unfortunately occasional conflicts of interest. I do not wish to portray Perl 6 as superior while it's unable to replace Perl 5 in practice.
Tene (Not sure I don't.)
diakopter but the two communities don't necessarily need to have conflicts of interest. that's one of my points (that the conflicts of interest need to be eliminated) 18:46
pmurias Tene: Perl 6 is intended to be better then Perl 5
diakopter mberends: Perl 6 should not be "portrayed as superior" ever 18:47
pmurias the language is, the implementations aren't
diakopter (as a potential replacement/substitute)
mberends improvement?
diakopter pmurias: yes; thank you for the clarification. I am indeed referring to the implementations and their capabilities. 18:48
pugs_svn r29430 | colomon++ | [t/spec] Refudge test to prevent crash. (Exact same problems as elems.t, it seems that "my @a = ();" and then trying to treat it like an array has issues.)
Tene diakopter: "ever" seems to disagree with you just talking about implementations.
If there could never be an implementation that would be better than Perl 5...
diakopter not *without* Perl 5, I mean. 18:49
sorry; I'm being confusing. :/
Tene What?
diakopter Tene: it's difficult b/c I don't know how much of the past 24 hours you've backlogged
Tene diakopter: all of it.
diakopter ok.
I'm refusing to give in to the notion that any Perl 6 implementation that doesn't make all of Perl 5 available is not useful 18:50
18:50 perlygatekeeper joined
diakopter is useful, I mean. argh. 18:50
diakopter starts over, again.
too many negators
mberends triple negative :(
Tene What about a Perl 6 that made all of Ruby available? Or all of Java? 18:51
18:51 jferrero joined
colomon__ apologies in advance to dalek... 18:51
diakopter that would be interesting, too... but then it'd be "super-powerful pattern/grammar addons for Ruby" or "... Java" 18:52
18:53 dalek left
colomon__ thought that would happen. 18:53
mberends Tene: fine idea technically, but in all likelihood the users interested in that feature would be a lot fewer than in the Perl 6 -> Perl 5 case
Tene So, all of those other languages that don't let you use Perl 5 are also not useful?
18:53 dalek joined
Tene If not, are you then saying that Perl 6 is a less-useful language than any other existing language? If so, what's the use working on it? 18:54
diakopter yes, it's less useful if it doesn't include all the capability of Perl 5.
Tene Python's OO is less-capable than Perl 5's.
Python is useless? 18:55
diakopter of course not
mberends Pure single language code is more maintainable. Multiple language projects mostly arise out of technical necessity.
Tene Python's XML parsing libraries are much less capable than Perl 5's.
I'm really not trying to be belligerent here, btw. I'm just very confused about what you're trying to say, and it seems like you want feedback about that.
If what I'm saying isn't useful to you, please feel free to tell me to STFU. :) 18:56
diakopter yes, Python's less useful *for those purposes* if those particular components are less capable.
it doesn't make Python useless overall (in the least) 18:57
I think perhaps a better way of saying what I'm trying to say is: a Perl 6 without all of Perl 5 available isn't Perl. 18:58
Tene So Perl 5 without a C compiler isn't Perl, because a noticable part of CPAN isn't available?
diakopter no, b/c a C compiler can be trivially added. 18:59
(namely, the same C compiler that built the perl)
Tene That just sounds way too much like a No True Scottsman fallacy.
colomon__ Tene++
diakopter how does it sound like that? 19:00
Tene I also question what purpose the category "Perl" would even be serving at that point.
As well, if half of CPAN was deleted, would Perl no longer exist? If so, what existed before that half of CPAN was written?
"Okay, so it's not 'Perl', and therefore..." -- can you complete that? "It's not useful."? 19:02
diakopter there are some miscommunications here.
Tene Probably. :) 19:03
this wouldn't be the first time I've completely missed the point.
diakopter it's not unconstructive. My statements need clarification. 19:05
Tene Yes. I figure, if I'm misunderstanding, others probably will also, and this seems like an important topic.
diakopter <@Tene> So, all of those other languages that don't let you use Perl 5 are also not useful?
Yes, insofar as they are proposed as a drop-in Perl 5 replacement (or successor) 19:06
Tene That's not what you said at all originally. >< 19:07
diakopter but my point is that Perl 6 *must not* be proposed as being able to replace Perl 5 for anything.
...*without* also including all of Perl 5 capability.
by "originally", which sentence do you mean 19:08
Tene So Perl 6 should be proposed as only being good for things that Perl 5 is incapable of doing? That's kind of absurd.
11:50 < diakopter> I'm refusing to give in to the notion that any Perl 6 implementation that doesn't make all of Perl 5 available is not useful
diakopter yes, and I corrected that
the final "not useful" should have been "useful"
that was a typo/thinko 19:09
Tene Right.
diakopter <@Tene> So Perl 6 should be proposed as only being good for things that Perl 5 is incapable of doing? That's kind of absurd.
yes, IFF someone tries to propose Perl 6 as a *replacement* for Perl 5.
however, in that question, you (and I) are (again) confusing language and implementation/installation. 19:10
let me try to explain. 19:11
19:11 eternaleye left
Tene Wait, are you just trying to persuade people of "Someone (unspecified) should go work on Perl 5 interop right now, and if you don't, you're doing it wrong, and everything else you're working on is useless."? 19:12
Or some variant of that?
diakopter ok, I won't explain 19:13
Tene Sorry, I think I'm confused again.
I'll wait.
I'm sorry if I've offended. 19:14
diakopter (back from afk) 19:19
mberends gotta go, happy 2010 everyone o/ 19:20
19:21 mberends left
diakopter As conceived at the time of Apocalypse 1 (and still written in Synopsis 1), Perl 6 was intended to replace /usr/bin/perl 19:21
(and to do that, it had to be specified to maintain backward compatability with "Perl 5 mode") 19:22
That requirement in Synopsis 1 is absolutely crucial. An implementation must be planned with it in mind. 19:23
an explanation of "is crucial": without it, a Perl 6 implementation cannot be a "drop-in substitute". 19:25
(and so it must be installed in $PATH/perl6 or whatever)
Tene And the consequence of it not being a "drop-in substitute" is... what?
diakopter it's not to spec 19:26
so it's very different than the Creator intended
capitalization ^ lighthearted metaphor 19:27
19:27 douglashunter joined
Tene None of the implementations so far have been entirely to spec. The parts of the spec that have bee nworked on so far are the parts important to the people doing the work. 19:27
diakopter sure
Tene I can't see it happening any other way, unless someone comes up with mountains of cash.
diakopter pugs did it. 19:28
Tene "Pugs did v5 interop" is a very different assertion from "pugs had people working on tasks they didn't care about"
Pugs had v5 interop because Pugs had implementors who cared about v5 interop enough to work on it. 19:29
diakopter "what people care about" isn't entirely up to invisible forces inside one's head. it can be influenced by rational decisions, too.
Tene That's right, and "But the spec says so" doesn't seem like a persuasive argument for anyone here.
So, again: 12:25 <@Tene> And the consequence of it not being a "drop-in substitute" is... what?
diakopter which is why my notes.txt emphasizes to clarify that point in Synopsis 1. 19:30
either the spec needs clarified that it's crucial, or it needs dropped
Tene There are lots of things in all of the synopses. Why is this point so much more critical than all of the other items that aren't completely implemented?
diakopter because it's so utterly different from what was originally imagined/designed. 19:31
Tene I'm sorry. Can you rephrase that?
diakopter having "use v5" was meant to provide a way to use v5 CPAN while porting/upgrading/transitioning
Tene Okay. 19:32
I don't see how that addresses my question at all, sorry. :(
diakopter without integrated access to CPAN, a partial Perl 6 release won't be used in any of the scenarios originally intended. 19:33
used/tested/experimented
it'll just be a new language
it loses its Perl lineage.
Tene Most of the current implementors seem to be comfortable with a new language. I still haven't seen arguments to persuade that this should be more important. 19:34
diakopter ok, but that's very different from what the spec says.
Tene This isn't the bible. It's not like Rakudo needs to inherit a birthright. :)
12:30 <@Tene> There are lots of things in all of the synopses. Why is this point so much more critical than all of the other items that aren't completely implemented?
diakopter because it's one of the biggest tasks. and resources are extremely limited. 19:36
Tene "New Language in the Perl Family" seems to be what many people are saying these days. ref masak/mst
diakopter ok, and that's fine, but the spec therefore needs updated to clarify the change in intent and use cases
Tene What use would interop with v6 be to v5 if v6 isn't sufficiently implemented on its own to be worth using?
diakopter another rhetorical question that indirectly supports my points. 19:37
resources are extremely limited.
19:37 SmokeMachine left
diakopter so yes, there would be a tradeoff. 19:37
Tene That supports your assertion that "someone" should stop working on implementing v6 itself and instead work on providing interop?
I don't see how that follows. 19:38
diakopter but the definition of "sufficiently implemented on its own to be worth using" is what's under discussion.
19:38 pmurias left
Tene I'm sorry if I've missed it, but looking back I don't see an answer. What do you assert is the reason that existing implementors should now prioritize Perl 5 interop over "producing a usable, nice, attractive language on its own" (as the existing implementors seem to see the situation)? 19:41
diakopter if "use v5" is not going to be removed from Synopsis 1 and others, then yes, that should be a top priority. Note that in my notes.txt document I claimed that would change implementations strategies a lot.
Tene: it's conditional
it's conditional on whether Perl 6 is spec'd to be "beside" a Perl 5 installation, or a drop-in-replacement.
Tene Okay, but *why* should that be a top priority over other parts of the spec? 19:42
diakopter because it's one of the biggest tasks. and resources are extremely limited.
(as I said above)
Tene I must be missing something. Let me re-read this for a while.
I really, really don't see how that's an answer at all.
diakopter if it's not a necessary task, that's fine. 19:43
Tene brb
colomon__ I'm with Tene on this.
Su-Shee but along those lines you could easily argue that because it's such a big task and because ressources are extremely limited all base features to get proper p6 modules up and running should be implemented first.
diakopter I'm just looking for an answer as to whether it's necessary.
colomon__ necessary for what?
diakopter for the "finished" goal.
if there's no "finished" goal, I'm with furry_marmot 19:44
Tene Okay, so pretend I'm an implementor. I'm sitting here, working on Rakudo. I ask you "Why should I contribute my limited resources to v5 interop instead of the parts that are important to me?", and your answer is "Because it's the biggest task!", right? 19:45
diakopter no. 19:46
Tene Okay, then that answer should contain the part that I'm missing, I hope.
diakopter my answer is to follow the suggestions in notes.txt first.
actually, first, I'd say, 'Why do you ask me "Why should I contribute my limited resources to v5 interop instead of the parts that are important to me?", since I didn't say that to you, Mr. Rakudo Developer?' 19:48
Tene 12:42 <@Tene> Okay, but *why* should that be a top priority over other parts of the spec?
12:42 < diakopter> because it's one of the biggest tasks. and resources are extremely limited.
diakopter right, I wasn't addressing Rakudo
(to the exclusion of mildew, vill, etc) 19:49
colomon__ Tene: but if you follow his other suggestions, the first thing to do is to abandon Rakudo...
19:49 partisan left, hicx174 left
Tene diakopter: I'm confused... who is that document addressed to? 19:49
diakopter Larry
as I stated in the commit message 19:50
and the Perl 6 Project Manager
(as I stated in the commit message)
I did not suggest abandoning Rakudo.
there are much higher priority tasks. 19:51
besides, Larry couldn't "abandon Rakudo". The suggestions are directed at Larry. 19:52
Tene So then your assertion is not "Existing contributers to Perl 6 implementations should be persuaded to work on v5 interop" but instead "'Someone' should do ... <notes.txt> and then 'someone' will start work on a Perl 6 implementation that includes v5 interop"?
s/Someone/Larry/
Again, please tell me if I'm wildly incorrect. 19:53
diakopter it's wildly incorrect. 19:54
Tene Okay.
diakopter the notes.txt document doesn't presume what Larry's answer will be to the "whether v5 interop/substitute is crucial" question.
(except where it does assume it won't change for the backend points) 19:55
(binding with libperl, etc)
19:55 chromatic joined
chromatic I don't think anyone understands what you want, diakopter. That's why we're all confused. 19:56
Tene Nothing else in the spec is listed as "crucial", but would be a more-significant omission than v5 interop. OO. Regexes.
diakopter I want the things in notes.txt. A. Eliminate the psychological roadblocks to attracting a horde of eager Perl 6 implementors and contributors and fanchildren. B. Bring together the highly fractured/fractious implementation communities and their implementations. C. Repair the "useless implementation" and "unusable language" perceptions. 19:57
Tene chromatic: Maybe we should ask Lerry to condense it into a series of documents explaining the details, and how the suggestions are to be implemented. :) 19:58
chromatic No one knows what you mean by "useless implementation" and "unusable language".
19:58 araujo joined
chromatic Sometimes it seems like you think Perl 5 interop is necessary and sometimes it doesn't. 19:58
No one knows what you mean by "fractured implementation communities". 19:59
Per my recollection, about four people have tried to rephrase what you've said into specifics, and every time you've said "No, that's not quite it." 20:00
Tene chromatic: I did get that part. He wants either: "Larry declares that v5 interop is unnecessary and v6 is not a replacement" or "larry declares that v5 interop is an extremely important requirement" 20:02
diakopter: right?
diakopter < chromatic> No one knows what you mean by "useless implementation" and "unusable language". C. in the lower portion refers to C. in the upper portion.
Tene: that's accurate
thank you
Tene I'm getting it! :) 20:03
chromatic What does "extremely important" mean?
diakopter definitively necessary
chromatic What does "necessary" mean?
diakopter to the "finished" goal
chromatic Necessary for what?
What does "finished" mean?
diakopter "where Perl 6 will be someday/eventually" 20:04
chromatic When is "someday"? When is "eventually"?
diakopter indeterminate
chromatic Then what's the point?
diakopter it's a question about whether it'll ever be a goal.
Tene My understanding is "Any reasonable implementation should either: start work on v5 interop immediately, or determine that v5 interop is infeasible and abandon their project for an implementation working on v5 interop".
chromatic It's been a goal for the past nine years.
Why wouldn't it be a goal? 20:05
Tene Is that right, diakopter?
diakopter Don't ask me... I think it should be a goal. 20:06
but if it's infeasible, then Perl 5 doesn't have much future, per se (as such, as a "Perl") 20:07
rjbs It doesn't?
diakopter SIGH
<-- types badly
Tene "True Perl"
diakopter but if it's infeasible, then Perl 6 doesn't have much future, per se (as such, as a "Perl")
rjbs It doesn't?
chromatic Let's not get into that Perl 5 versus Perl 6 marketing nonsense.
diakopter I don't see how it's [whatever it is you refer to by " ... marketing nonsense"] is nonsense? 20:08
chromatic Because I don't like the "Let's all dance around holding hands, la la la, and ignore real problems in both Perl 5 and Perl 6 development, isn't it nice, you stupid Ruby jerks!" song and dance as of late. 20:09
But that's the nonsense I want to avoid.
diakopter oh good, me too.
hopefully I wasn't doing that
chromatic Can we assume, for the sake of this discussion, that Perl 6 will succeed or fail on its own merits?
I don't think you were, but I want to avoid that before it even starts.
That is, assume there are a million current active Perl 5 programmers, however you define "active" and "Perl 5 programmer", and maybe another million people who have programmed in Perl 5. 20:10
diakopter I'm fairly certain the contents of notes.txt should have made it clear I want to focus on the problems and not ignore them.
chromatic That leaves some 6.5 billion people who haven't programmed Perl 5 who may or may not program Perl 6.
diakopter these are tasty numerals 20:11
chromatic It's not that I don't care about those 2 million people, but that I care about the other 6.5 billion people some 3000 times more.
diakopter look, I'm sometimes indulge in a messiah complex, but ... isn't that stretching it a little? 20:12
*I
I mean, "what?" 20:13
chromatic In the next hundred years, will orders of magnitudes more people find themselves programming? I find that likely.
Tene This goes back to diakopter's earlier request that if Perl 6 is meant to be a "new language in the perl family", that v5 interop should be deemphasized explicitly in S01. 20:14
chromatic Okay, but I don't understand the rationale of doing so.
Tene I'm still lost on what that would accomplish, though.
diakopter I'll grant you 1 decimal order of magnitude for sake of discussion, sure.
Tene Something to do with "Finished", I think? 20:15
20:15 perlygatekeeper left
diakopter < chromatic> Can we assume, for the sake of this discussion, that Perl 6 will succeed or fail on its own merits? As opposed to what? 20:16
chromatic Whether it can steal sheep from Perl 5.
diakopter that's exactly the question (whether it would never need to steal sheep)
Tene diakopter: as opposed to the primary metric for success or failure being conversion of current P5 programmers.
20:16 pdcawley left
chromatic I like my phrasing better, because it gets rjbs's attention and then he talks in funny voices. 20:16
diakopter who needs to be converted? 20:17
if v5 interop is a feasible goal, why would anyone need converted
rjbs Hm hey what?
chromatic There's your marketing question though. "Why would anyone use Perl 6?"
diakopter I mean, this isn't the Reorganized Church of the Former-Day Monks 20:18
chromatic Some vocal people have rejected the obvious (and, admittedly, simplistic) "Because Perl 5 will die after Perl 6 comes out."
diakopter I thought that belief was generally rejected years ago 20:19
chromatic Some people agree and others disagree with "Because it's a better language for (insert my current purposes) than any other language."
That definition of "better" can include "installed on my machine already", "has great documentation", "the neighbor kid will help me use it", but in this sense, "because it has great libraries already available". 20:20
Note, for example, Ruby adoption in English-speaking countries from 2000 through early 2006. 20:21
Or Tcl in its entire history.
Or Lisp before CL.
(Or CL after CL.)
diakopter sure, Perl 6 without "use v5" has its distinctives, compared to both Perl 5 and the other languages. 20:22
chromatic But what we're talking about now is an *adoption* criterion. 20:23
diakopter yes
chromatic You can take "I can't use Perl 6 if it doesn't have DBI!" on its face, or understand its deeper meaning.
diakopter (go on)
chromatic On its face, it means someone needs to port the DBI module. 20:24
Its deeper meaning is that everyone probably has some existing code they would like to reuse.
diakopter yes 20:25
20:25 sjohnson sets mode: +o diakopter
chromatic Here's where the marketing nonsense comes in. 20:25
20:26 ChanServ sets mode: -o diakopter
chromatic Is p5 interop a gateway to p6? 20:26
20:26 pdcawley joined
chromatic No one wants to touch that question because of its implications. 20:26
diakopter do you mean an adoption pathway?
chromatic Lots of ways to mean it. 20:27
Possibility 1) The most important reason people use Perl 5 is because of existing code, not any inherent quality of the language itself. Thus, reusing that code with a better language is an improvement.
diakopter "there is no hard & fast specification for interoperability/compatibility with installations of the Perl 5 implementation, so any paths to migration and adoption imagined by potential implementors/contributors are extremely speculative and often contradictory, which is a deterrent."
chromatic The implication is that *rewriting* that existing code is an eventual goal, even if never realized. 20:28
Possibility 2) Perl 6 has to compete with Perl 5 (for whatever "compete" means) on the basis of its available libraries.
The implication there is that the stability and maturity of an implementation matters only insofar as it enables people to write the most beneficial libraries. 20:29
diakopter yeah. I believe (2) is a failure path
chromatic Whichever one you choose determines what you mean by "production ready" and "stable" and "finished".
diakopter ok.. what's the mapping 20:30
chromatic You can actually choose a middle path between the two, however.
Make a new Phalanx 2010. Call that representative. (Beware of sheep stealing!) 20:31
Make an effort to port those to native Perl 6.
Also concentrate on sufficient interop to support 80% of the rest of the Phalanx top 1000.
20:32 douglashunter left
diakopter that'd be great if we had more than about 10 FTEs 20:32
chromatic That'd probably be instructive to support approach #1, too. "These extensions are *unnecessary* in a brave new world."
s1n diakopter: i finally read that rakudo * release response you linked earlier today
chromatic Sure, but I already mentioned that contributor time, energy, interest, and ability isn't fungible.
diakopter brb
s1n diakopter: i must agree, it was a very well worded response
i think what holds perl6 back is a lack of a blessed implementation, there's nothing to rally behind except the most complete implementation of the moment, of which there have been several now 20:35
20:36 PZt left
rjbs I'm not sure what you mean by "holds back." 20:36
s1n rjbs: from gaining further acceptance
Tene rjbs: There are people who would contribute to or use Perl 6 if there were a blessed implementation who instead have not contributed to or used.
s1n look at all the people working on perl5 code, imagine what perl6 would be like if they felt there was a blessed implementation to work with 20:37
rjbs Can you defined "blessed" a bit more, and can you cite your evidence?
chromatic That sounds... difficult to prove.
s1n look at CPython as an example
there are many like it, but that one is "blessed" by the community
rjbs So: people use it because people use it? 20:38
diakopter how does the non-fungibility of human resources affect it? Yes, we need 10 autrijus tangs or 5000 of me.
s1n no, people use it because it's the accepted "gold standard"
rjbs by whom?
the community?
s1n the community
rjbs meaning: people use it
chromatic Audrey works on what Audrey wants. diakopter works on what diakopter wants. chromatic works on what chromatic wants. The Venn diagram is instructive.
s1n the community agrees there is one primary implementation
chromatic CPython also matches the current Python specification 100%.
s1n that's the difference
rjbs but they way they agree is *by using it* 20:39
they don't have a vote, then use the one they voted on; usage IS the vote
s1n chromatic: there are others that do too, i think US does as well
diakopter chromatic: I see your point; are you saying rational persuasion is futile? 20:40
s1n rjbs: that's kind of a circular argument; look at it however you want, there is one such implementation everyone in the python community rallies around and agrees is the definitive implementation
that keeps the community solid and working towards a common goal
rjbs My point is that you started with this circular argument. 20:41
diakopter (or more leadership from Larry wouldn't be helpful?)
rjbs Also isn't CPython the original?
s1n more or less
chromatic I'm not saying rational persuation is futile, but that there are limits to what you can persuade people to do rationally.
Larry knows this better than almost anyone else I've ever met.
rjbs So people think it's standard because for ages it was all there was. 20:42
20:42 LionMadeOfLions left, xomas left, pugs_svn left, mdxi left, hugme left, Infinoid left, kcwu left, cj left, dbrock left, REPLeffect_ left, dukelet0 left, mtve left, zamolxes left, akl left, RichiH left, tomaw_ left
chromatic Larry performs simulated community annealing to meet his goals, and that tends to meet the goals the community wishes to meet. 20:42
s1n then he should know that a spec without an implementation is just pissing into an ocean of piss
rjbs Okay, I think I'm going to do something fun now.
diakopter s1n: that wasn't constructive
s1n no it wasn't, sorry
but i would like everyone to rally around an implementation, be it rakudo or something else 20:43
diakopter too
Tene You have to allow for a certain amount of unconstructive griping in discussions like this, and ignore and move past it. I do it too. Not a problem.
s1n so outsiders don't have to learn what "rakudo" is and can just refer to it as "perl6"
chromatic What's the point of the specification then? 20:44
diakopter english explanation of the test suite.
s1n i don't have a good answer to that, but i can explain what i have seen in the last 2 years of following perl6
20:45 tomaw_ joined
s1n i haven't been around forever, but a spec without some sort of blessed implementation leaves people asking "great, but where's the interpreter?" 20:45
20:45 wormphlegm joined
chromatic Okay, let's try this again. 20:45
diakopter resets _everything_ 20:46
chromatic What does some imprimatur on an implementation bestow that we don't currently have?
(Also, what does that imprimatur provide that the specification doesn't?)
s1n something to use
something to write code against that you know will work (if allowable by the spec) 20:47
diakopter a "reference implementation" tag, I think you mean
s1n something the community can put their weight into and move forward faster
diakopter: thank you
chromatic Okay, so Larry says the magical sentence "You know, Rakudo's coming along nicely", and magical candy-dropping unicorns fly overhead. 20:48
s1n no, not enough
more like Larry says "this (rakudo) is perl6"
chromatic ... and then magical candy-flavored unicorns? 20:49
diakopter in my opinion, though, it provides a stronger mandate for people such as myself, pmurias, mberends, ruoso, mncharity, fglock to work on interoperable software (in the same project) instead of mutually conflicting/competing software.
s1n sure, that and it's a rally point
chromatic rakudo.org/status/
s1n you have like 5 different implementations all chasing their tails
and perl5 people saying "where's the interpreter?"
20:49 pdcawley left
s1n don't you think if everyone working towards one goal will gain momentum faster? 20:49
chromatic Maybe those implementors should take a look at 1) how much of the specification they pass 2) how many other people they have working with them 3) their ability to add new features and fix bugs and perform some risk/reward analysis on their own. 20:50
diakopter where's the graph of percent coverage of the specification by the test suite?
s1n it's not the candy and unicorns you're looking for, but it's the first major hurdle in moving forward
people will go to perl.com and see "ooo look, perl6" 20:51
then maybe you get more rakudo contributors or more modules
maybe someone redoes cpan finally
chromatic Well.
s1n but you have to have a starting rally point
chromatic I'm sorry, but after 24 monthly releases of Rakudo and 80% passing test suite, if that's not a rally point, you're not paying attention. 20:52
s1n the spec is not that, it's beyond most people's ability to contribute to
rjbs "Hey, everybody who was writing another Perl 6 implementation? Your work is now officially less cared about!"
diakopter my point is valid.
chromatic What point? That everybody jumps when Larry says so? That Larry ever says so?
diakopter where's the graph of percent coverage of the specification by the test suite? and the rakudo coverage percentage of that, over time
s1n well, larry is the benevolent dictator 20:53
chromatic Where's the graph of any implementation's coverage percentage of that, over time?
Have you ever seen Larry dictate where people spend their time? Ever?
20:53 SmokeMachine joined, REPLeffect_ joined, zamolxes joined, akl joined, dukelet0 joined, mtve joined
s1n none of that coverage stuff matters to outsiders 20:53
they look at perl6 and say "oo an incomplete spec and no official implementation..... hmm python looks interesting"
chromatic Pull my other leg. It has bells on. 20:54
diakopter chromatic: sure, those graphs don't exist
rjbs {{citation needed}}
diakopter but that would be a much more persuasive metric
rjbs (For example, I would accept a photos of the bells.)
chromatic Show me that willing army of fungible implementors turned off by the lack of the simple word "official" in front of the word "Rakudo" on a web page somewhere. 20:55
20:55 LionMadeOfLions joined, xomas joined, dbrock joined, cj joined, kcwu joined, mdxi joined, Infinoid joined, pugs_svn joined, hugme joined, irc.freenode.net sets mode: +vv pugs_svn hugme
s1n chromatic: i would, but they all moved on to python, javascript, scala, etc... 20:55
chromatic Yes, and this paperweight keeps away tigers.
Because do you see any tigers in my office? QED. 20:56
(And, quick, which Javascript implementation is "official"?)
s1n okay, this isn't productive, i'll keep my mouth shut then
there isn't, whacky huh? but at least there are dozens of working implementations 20:57
chromatic You don't have to keep your mouth shut. I just doubt magical thinking.
diakopter chromatic: my point is that "80% passing test suite" is, at best, misleading.
chromatic Misleading to what?
s1n chromatic: why, because the last 10 years of thinking has worked?
diakopter let's add a few billion more generated tests, and we can reach 5 nines
chromatic I can point to actual code and actual tests and actual passing tests you can run right now. Your army of fungible polyglot implementors... well, show me a picture of one. 20:58
s1n passing tests are totally meaningless to potential users
diakopter you haven't addressed my claim that "80% passing test suite is misleading"
chromatic Misleading to what?
Tene diakopter: What soes "80% passing tests" assert that is untrue? 20:59
diakopter nothing, technically.
Tene ...
s/assert/imply/ ?
diakopter but it implies that the test suite is somewhere close to complete
chromatic Oh, your claim that users care about the presence or absence of the word "official" or "blessed" or "reference" as a primary criterion for selecting a language.
Ah.
s1n it's 80% passing of the spec that is maybe 65-70% complete? how does that percentage convince potential users and contributors exactly?
chromatic Convince potential users of WHAT exactly?
s1n using a non-existant official implementation 21:00
diakopter I daresay it's nowhere close to 65-70% complete
rjbs It tells them that there are a lot of tests, which make it much easier to hack on the program.
chromatic Okay. Now what does that magical candy-flavored pony word "official" mean here?
s1n put yourself in the shoes of someone who has used perl5 before and hasn't followed the perl6 circus
rjbs The notion that the implementation is 80% of the way done to completing the entire language is a problem.
s1n you stumble on these charts, with passing tests count
rjbs I agree that the "80% of tests pass" often gets the wrong point across.
s1n are they convincing enough to start using .... which implementaton? 21:01
rjbs I don't think anybody picks a language to used based on its core test suite.
s1n exactly
chromatic Ruby programmers don't.
rjbs So why are you talking about it?
s1n i'm saying the charts are meaningless
rjbs They're not meaningless.
s1n what are they good for then? 21:02
rjbs They just don't mean "how much of Perl 6 The Language is actually implemented"
chromatic I have my doubts that a programmer who can't tell that Rakudo's 80% passing rate is better than (let's make up an implementation) Omaha-9's 20% passing rate is better is a representative sample of language adoption.
rjbs they tell you exactly what they say they tell you:
diakopter "look, we don't enough resources to write/generate our test suite, but we can do trigonometry computations 1e5x slower than Perl
"
chromatic Why don't you fix that then?
rjbs Of the large number of existing core tests, how many does the implementation pass?
This is useful information.
diakopter chromatic: I can't :(
chromatic Guess you're not fungible then.
rjbs Also useful is the actual test report, showing you *which* parts pass ro fail.
s1n rjbs: that's useful, but it's not so much the charts... 21:03
diakopter that's fine... that's what division of labor and good project mgmt is for.
s1n i was referring to the pretty charts and the percentages
rjbs The charts also show you the rate of change over time, which gives you an at-a-glance to the implementation's activity.
Is it passing more of the existing tests, meaning it's getting active work, is it falling behind the curve? 21:04
chromatic Note that every specific metric rjbs has mentioned gives much more practical detail than the words "official" or "reference" or "blessed" or "alpha" or "stable".
rjbs They're not a tell-all. They're just not *meaningless*.
diakopter what does rakudo-ng's test graph look like
s1n rjbs: dead to rights
rjbs If I wanted to open myself up to frowning-at here, I would say this of the whole thing: 21:05
Tene rjbs: :( !!!
rjbs Perl 6 is not going to be ready for many people to do "their jobs" with it for quite a while. I think the key is getting the cutting edge people really excited and interested, so that when R* and similar releases of Perl 6 occur in the future, those people play with them for fun in their spare time. 21:06
21:06 PZt joined
chromatic Sounds reasonable to me. 21:06
rjbs I think Perl 6, and rakudo especially, are now useful for solving some real problems, but more to the point they're great at demonstrating the strength of Perl 6 as a language.
s1n i actually agree with that, sadly
rjbs so the goal has to be "hey, you early adopters! come check this stuff out"
and then keep things steadily improving so they don't lose interest 21:07
s1n that makes rakudo the unofficial impl though
rjbs and eventually the early adopter types will produce some tools that are really useful to the muggles
diakopter we're steadily approaching heat death, too.
s1n muggles, lol
rjbs "unofficial" is meaningless here.
s1n diakopter: heat death? 21:08
rjbs We don't need a reference implementation because there is a specification and (to be) comprehensive test suite.
Tene s1n: eh?
unofficial what how?
diakopter s1n: I'm Feeling Lucky it
rjbs Many people, language fetishists especially, will use Rakudo because it's first to market.
chromatic "unofficial" is super meaningless. You want "How to download Perl 6" and "How to install Perl 6" documentation? Tell people how to download and install whichever implementation is most useful for them.
rjbs Other people will be drawn to other implementaitons because of what they offer.
Imagine Sprixel in JS was much closer to complete and you could write Perl 6 to run in the browser. Try to tell me the weird hardcore JS guys wouldn't be abusing the hell out of it. 21:09
diakopter I doubt it
rjbs If someone got Pugs working well enough to manage your window orientation in "monad," people would start doing weird shit.
Su-Shee we will use whatever implementation is first "ready to use" in our company's needs definition and we (subjectively) consider the best one for the next 10 years of our perl stuff. 21:10
rjbs I think Rakudo is likely to be first among equals, at least for quite a while. "Official" just gets you nothing, as far as I can tell.
chromatic "Official" is an easy way to shame people for forking.
s1n i'm just stoking the embers, hopefully the next 10 years of perl6 goes better than the last 21:11
rjbs Official matters more when there's an office.
chromatic I have an office and there's a lion in it.
Tene but if they fork, they're not helping! they should be shamed!
rjbs because they don't let unofficial employees collect paychecks.
diakopter chromatic: I hope you don't think _I_ was endorsing the "official" label.
chromatic I don't care who endorses the "official" label. I argue against the idea, not the person or persons advocating it. 21:12
rjbs (the o13n of rakudo)
diakopter back to what I said, then. 21:13
in my opinion, though, it provides a stronger mandate for people such as myself, pmurias, mberends, ruoso, mncharity, fglock to work on interoperable software (in the same project) instead of mutually conflicting/competing software.
rjbs "it"? 21:14
chromatic "same project"?
You mean the "official" moniker?
rjbs I think he means the lack of it.
where same project == Perl 6
but maybe he will tell us if I stop talking
chromatic Do the funny voices!
diakopter "it" being a project selected/constructed from a result of doing the analysis I recommended. 21:15
rjbs 3Do you have change for a rupee?
chromatic Henchman #23!
sorry, 24... I'll be quiet now.
rjbs would rather be Two-Ton 21. 21:16
diakopter I would like to work together with all of you in a more organized/concerted way, and [I assume] there are others who have some of the same concerns I expressed in notes.txt that are preventing that.
s1n agrees with diakopter even though i don't have time to contribute until i graduate :( 21:17
rjbs is pretty sure he has zero commits in any Perl-6-related thing. 21:18
I just hang out here for the free food.
21:18 colomon__ left
diakopter my [recent change in my] degree of felt urgency is due to... wanting to "recover"/justify a lot of my (and others') sunk costs. 21:18
Tene diakopter: eh? howso? 21:19
diakopter I'd rather my efforts not be in vain, so I'd like to work on something that has a higher expectation of success than I can assign it currently. 21:20
Tene diakopter: Does that mean "increase the expectation of success of the projects I've worked on"? 21:21
diakopter with the problems described in A.B.C. unresolved, it's fun and all, but risky. I have opportunity costs, too.
Tene: sure, if it's deserved. 21:22
I mean, earned/merited.
er, valid.
s1n diakopter: i'm not sure i follow what you're saying
diakopter sigh
s1n apologizes for being obnoxious 21:23
diakopter I was describing my emotional motivation. I tried to leave it out of notes.txt, but failed somewhat. 21:24
s1n i guess i missed the notes.txt
diakopter but I do believe my rational motivation/explanation has merits
s1n: there's a lot of backlog
Tene diakopter: given your feelings on the subject, why did you personally start working on a new implementation instead of contributing to an existing implementation? 21:25
(just curious)
diakopter which time? ;)
Tene If there are different motivations for the different times, I'd like to hear all of them. 21:26
diakopter brb 21:28
s1n diakopter: i've had motivation problems as well, i even decided that now is not the time for me to actively work on perl6, but not because of perl6's woes
rjbs is really hoping to do some more Inform programming soon. 21:29
That should garner lots of attention! :-/
21:30 cognominal left 21:33 stephenlb joined 21:36 cognominal joined 21:37 Intensity joined
diakopter Tene: I'm working on my latest effort in a NIH-driven attempt to reimplement nqp-rx-style grammars (and eventually fully STD-style grammars). Prior to that, sprixel was an experiment to test out the general "feel" of the speed of a JS backend for STD/viv. Prior to that, I wrote an implementation of Microsoft's MGrammar grammar language (but which owes a lot to my earlier experimenting with what I called "yap6", which was itself an evolution of MJD's re 21:38
Tene diakopter: cut off after "MJD's re..." 21:39
diakopter MJD's recursive descent combinator system from HOP). I tried quite a few times to build a development environment for parrot/rakudo, smop/mildew, but I never really succeeded with those.
Tene diakopter: scripts.irssi.org/scripts/splitlong.pl
diakopter to actually answer your question, however: 21:41
a few years ago, I was averse to working on parrot/perl6 because of what I perceived to be bad architecture in parrot, not to mention my own total lack of experience/ability to contribute. 21:44
really, the question only applies to the last 6 months or so.
better stated, my answers regarding solely the last 5 months matter. 21:47
6
Tene So what are those answers?
diakopter there's that 5<->6 confusion again
the above description of what I'm working on now, and sprixel.
21:48 orafu left, orafu joined
diakopter what I'm working on now, to have a C# implementation of nqp-rx/STD-style grammars, sprixel, to feel out a JS interpreter backend to STD/viv. 21:48
s1n diakopter: is there a c# impl for parrot? 21:50
diakopter "for" parrot? 21:51
s1n diakopter: or are you targetting something else?
Tene s1n: There's a .net bytecode translator.
s1n Tene: interesting
diakopter it targets the cli, either CLR or mono.
it compiles to CIL.
Tene s1n: last I heard, it's incomplete, but just needs the rest of the opcode definitions filled out, which jnthn didn't seem to think was too much work.
s1n: jnthn also wrote one for jvm bytecode, iirc 21:52
s1n jnthn must not sleep :/ 21:53
Tene I haven't seen any C# compilers for Parrot.
s1n: I think there's a presentation about it on his website...
jnthn.net/papers/2007-oscon-net2pir-slides.pdf looks like 21:54
22:12 ejs joined 22:16 SmokeMachine left 22:21 ejs left 22:22 simcop2387_ joined 22:25 jferrero left, jferrero joined 22:27 RichiH joined 22:30 simcop2387 left 22:53 hicx174 joined 22:59 partisan joined 23:06 xomas left 23:07 xomas_ joined 23:13 Su-Shee left 23:25 mj41 joined 23:30 mj41_ left 23:39 Nhelo joined

Powered by Cro and the Raku® Programming Language.

Please report any issues / comments / feature requests as an issue on App::Raku::Log.

Thank you!