Wow.

Posted Jul 31, 2010 16:39 UTC (Sat) by khc (guest, #45209)
In reply to: Wow. by dskoll
Parent article: The first Rakudo Star release

I guess another way to look at it is, if they find a way to load those new features in perl6 on demand, then perl6 can be substantially smaller and faster (to start up).

Wow.

Posted Jul 31, 2010 17:13 UTC (Sat) by thepaul (guest, #69331) [Link]

NERDFIGHT! Woo!

Wow.

Posted Jul 31, 2010 18:33 UTC (Sat) by chromatic (guest, #26207) [Link] (1 responses)

Exactly. Both Patrick and I believe that this is possible and desirable.

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.

Wow.

Posted Aug 1, 2010 3:21 UTC (Sun) by efexis (guest, #26355) [Link]

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.

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 :-)