Wow.
Wow.
Posted Jul 30, 2010 21:35 UTC (Fri) by chromatic (guest, #26207)In reply to: Wow. by dskoll
Parent article: The first Rakudo Star release
Posted Jul 30, 2010 23:30 UTC (Fri)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (6 responses)
I don't understand that last remark. Are you saying Rakudo Star is implemented in Perl 6? And that it's "just" a matter of rewriting it in something else to make it small and fast?
Posted Jul 31, 2010 0:30 UTC (Sat)
by chromatic (guest, #26207)
[Link] (5 responses)
Your comparison of the size of an optimized binary produced by an optimizing C compiler to an unoptimized barely-a-binary-at-all produced by an unoptimizing Perl 6 comparison is silly. Ditto your comparison of the memory use. Likewise your comparison of the feature set. Compare the optimized Perl 5 to the unoptimized Rakudo Star on feature set for a more accurate depiction of the situation.
Posted Jul 31, 2010 14:16 UTC (Sat)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (4 responses)
Even your "accurate comparison" shows that Perl 5 is significantly smaller and faster than Rakudo Star.
But here's the thing: You had to add a lot of modules to Perl 5 to get it to be in the same order of magnitude of slowness and bloat as Rakudo Star. But Perl 5 without all those modules is still a very useful tool. It seems that with Perl 6, we have no choice: We get all the features whether or not we'll use them.
In 14+ years of Perl development, I haven't written a single project that uses even one of those Perl 5 modules you loaded for comparison purposes (though I suspect eventually I'll be forced to drag in Moose as more and more CPAN modules require it.) So I think it's you who is gaming the comparison. I'm pretty sure I could find a way to make Perl 5 10x slower and bigger than Rakudo Star, but that doesn't reflect the way people actually use Perl 5.
Posted Jul 31, 2010 16:39 UTC (Sat)
by khc (guest, #45209)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Jul 31, 2010 18:33 UTC (Sat)
by chromatic (guest, #26207)
[Link] (1 responses)
Even so, anyone who's happy with the features of Perl 5 is more than welcome to continue to use Perl 5. It's not going anyway any time soon.
For people who want use Perl 5 as if it were Perl 6, Rakudo Star is becoming a more and more useful and usable option, and it'll continue to do so.
Posted Aug 1, 2010 3:21 UTC (Sun)
by efexis (guest, #26355)
[Link]
Wow.
Wow.
Wow.
Wow.
Wow.
I want the multi-threadedness that p6 offers (I am correct in assuming this is correct helpful multi-threadedness, rather than what p5 has?) and many other language enhancements of p6, BUT with the agreeable sigils of p5 that makes it a more natural language, eg, in p5, A $sigil on it's own or A $sigil[10] in A [group] IS agreeable. In p6, ARE A @sigil[10] agreeable? No, in p6, A @sigil[10] AREN'T agreeable. I'm assuming that if you can speak perl and especially if you've ever tried to learn another language where agreement is more obvious than it is in English that you can understand what I'm saying. And yes I am aware that it can be changed with grammars, but still... yacky! I love all the naturalnesses of the p5 language, it's what makes me love using it over any other language so much, I love expressive speech, it's sad to see much of that gone in p6 :'-( I do understand it makes it easier for the machine to parse tho.
Wow.
I do >>love>> all that stuff tho. Not keen on tying ~ strings ~ together ~ with ~ this ~ though, that's a really awkward key to press, much slower than . or + which I would probably just have to overload if I can ever get over how un-agreeable all the @sigils is now... see, it just doesn't sound right! But then I don't like the term 'overload' either, it should be 'override', 'overloading' an operator sounds like a way of testing it to find out at what level it will fail, or have a scottish person show up and say "the operators captain, they cannae take it!" so maybe I'm just way too picky *lol* but no I can forgive that, I understand it means "to load over" not actually "overload", so that are one issue that I is happy to forgive... SEE! You need agreement in language! *lol*
I'll shut up now :-)