Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

blogs.perl.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 424 posts

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#391

Post by snaky »

6thaccount2 wrote: post #316
rurban wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As parrot maintainer I could explain what caused the downfall: Stupid people. It was a CPS compiler, but after they drove the first creators away, a bunch of people who had no idea about compilers nor CPS started destroying it. First the destroyed the jit. The technical justification was bullshit. Then they destroyed the run loops, and finally the CPS (2007 YAPC workshop). This caused every function call to allocate…

How fast is your Perl11 project compared to Perl5 and Python?

The more practical question would be not how fast it is (supposing it's quite fast), but how many features isn't there yet.

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#392

Post by colomon »

petre wrote: post #366
6thaccount2 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some things are already significantly faster, but there are other common operations that are still slower. I wonder if the JIT will interfere with scripts where startup time is not acceptable?

I did some tests for prime number crunching. For example the C-style loop statement is faster than Perl's own foreach. Perl6 was the slowest of them all while the fastest was LuaJIT. The whole code is two loops with a bunch of multiplications and additions, an array push, loading a hash and looking up values in it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16720027

This seems like a very odd standard to use? I understand that you wanted to compare performances of different languages, that's great.

But if you actually wanted to get the job done idiomatically, the code is one short, simple line of Perl 6. The performance, while admittedly slower, is within the same order of magnitude as your Perl 5 version.

To me, this is the magic of Perl 6. Sure, if you want to use 16 lines of loopy integer-crunching code to calculate the first N primes and you care about speed, Perl 6 should not be your choice. On the other hand, if you'd prefer to say

  (1..$N).grep(*.is-prime)
and get the answer back in reasonable speed, Perl 6 is perfect.

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#393

Post by gerikson »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #245
Qcombinator wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of languages — in fact, a lot of software in general — is designed to make things easy for the computer/programmer: "This is how it works and you just have to adapt, deal with it." Larry Wall put a lot of effort into making Perl try to adapt to the way the user already thinks instead, including taking advantage of having studied linguistics to figure out how the "language" part of a computer language fits (or d…

I think there's a greater underlying dichotomy here that's relevant to your tailor-made suit analogy: the people who love Perl tend to be the people who are building and maintaining mostly only their own tooling and (usually small) codebases, and the people who don't love Perl tend to be the ones that are responsible for maintaining large piles of other people's code. A language that's "tailor-made" for the individua…

> A language that's "tailor-made" for the individual is fantastic when you only have to deal with your own code.

I think this is spot on.

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#394

Post by mannykannot »

ether_at_cpan wrote: post #265
mannykannot wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still use Perl 5 for some tasks, but my rule-of-thumb is that if I anticipate wanting to use references, I will go elsewhere.

> but my rule-of-thumb is that if I anticipate wanting to use references, I will go elsewhere Why? References are not scary and they work just like in any other language -- they are simply a memory address that points to another value stored somewhere else.

The implementation is not the issue; it is the awkward and fussy syntax. It is not a show-stopper -- I coped with it for a while -- but there are better alternatives.

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#395

Post by marcosdumay »

k__ wrote: post #387
marcosdumay wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I wouldn't. Perl 5 is much more powerful. But I wouldn't choose either for a moderately large script.

Ah okay. But back in the days? Bash seems to be released a year or so after Perl.

Bash is a much better shell, mostly because you don't have to quote shell commands. Perl 5 is a much better scripting language.

If it was not for Python and Ruby, Perl would still be the language to go for scripts. But I don't think anybody ever used it interactively.

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#396

Post by rurban »

6thaccount2 wrote: post #316
rurban wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As parrot maintainer I could explain what caused the downfall: Stupid people. It was a CPS compiler, but after they drove the first creators away, a bunch of people who had no idea about compilers nor CPS started destroying it. First the destroyed the jit. The technical justification was bullshit. Then they destroyed the run loops, and finally the CPS (2007 YAPC workshop). This caused every function call to allocate…

How fast is your Perl11 project compared to Perl5 and Python?

Faster than both. But more importantly much better security, much more features, and continuous improvements. perl5 is just continuous destruction.

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#397

Post by grayed-down »

daotoad wrote: post #336
grayed-down wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great idea. If Perl 6 got a new name, some new branding, and Perl 5 added a few new features and polish, the language would suddenly awaken from its 20 year nightmare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl_5_version_history New features have been coming out with yearly releases since 2010's release of version 5.12. But by 2010, many people already thought Perl5 was dead because Perl6 still hadn't shipped. The really interesting stuff is actually happening on CPAN, with great extensions like: * Type::Tiny https://metacpan.org/pod/Type::Tiny * Kavorka https://metacpan.org/pod/Kavorka *…

Absolutely. I should have added that such new features whatever they may be could be touted as the lever to move Perl 5 to Perl 7 and be done with the whole Perl 6 thing.

And whatever name is given to Perl 6, great. Let it find its way in the world as it should. It's got a lot to offer.

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#398

Post by rurban »

chromatic wrote: post #315
rurban wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As parrot maintainer I could explain what caused the downfall: Stupid people. It was a CPS compiler, but after they drove the first creators away, a bunch of people who had no idea about compilers nor CPS started destroying it. First the destroyed the jit. The technical justification was bullshit. Then they destroyed the run loops, and finally the CPS (2007 YAPC workshop). This caused every function call to allocate…

As parrot maintainer I could explain what caused the downfall: Stupid people. Reini, it seems like you think everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. This isn't an explanation for anything . We were boxed in for two really good not-primarily-technical reasons: * we had users we didn't want to abandon or cause churn * we had architectural decisions we had to improve Now I know I'm not as smart or as experienced or a…

> it seems like you think everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. This isn't an explanation for anything.

It is the simpliest explanation. In fact it was stupid and arrogant leadership mostly.

There was no disagreement, as we didn't say a beep then. They made those stupid decisions all by themselves, and didn't listen to any advice. The better people just silently left, shaking their heads.

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#399

Post by chromatic »

rurban wrote: post #398
chromatic wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As parrot maintainer I could explain what caused the downfall: Stupid people. Reini, it seems like you think everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. This isn't an explanation for anything . We were boxed in for two really good not-primarily-technical reasons: * we had users we didn't want to abandon or cause churn * we had architectural decisions we had to improve Now I know I'm not as smart or as experienced or a…

> it seems like you think everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. This isn't an explanation for anything. It is the simpliest explanation. In fact it was stupid and arrogant leadership mostly. There was no disagreement, as we didn't say a beep then. They made those stupid decisions all by themselves, and didn't listen to any advice. The better people just silently left, shaking their heads.

It is the simpliest explanation.

It's the laziest explanation.

Did you ever ask yourself why, for example, all of the calling convention code paths were consolidated into a single code path? It wasn't to make a single, inefficient code path as you claim.

It was to provide a gradual transition for clients to a better designed calling convention system which could then be optimized for actual client uses.

The goal was never to create the fastest possible VM at every single point in time. That's where I think you never understood the goal of the project, and that's where I think you've never understood the goal of p5p.

The goal was to make something that works, continues to work, and can be improved while continuing to work. That's why you're no longer welcome in p5p -- because your goals and your actions are incompatible with that.

I wish you understood this. You're very smart and very talented and you have a lot to offer, if you can get out of your own way and accept that people who don't share your exact goals in the exact same way aren't irredeemably stupid.

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#400

Post by daotoad »

robocat wrote: post #215
rurban wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the last version. There are two latest versions of Perl, the perl5 variant, currently at 5.30.0, and the Perl 6 variant, but they use the Microsoft convention of years in the name. Both have huge problems, perl5 being effectively dead and the most hated language amongst devs. (I'm still trying to save it via cperl though). And Perl 6 interesting (I was the parrot backend maintainer, until they ditched it), b…

Someone else suggested renaming Perl 5 to Perl 7, and that has some merits so long as it is 100% backwards compatible (no Python 3 improvements). Maybe add a few default warnings for using "ugly" features - maybe just in a linter - perhaps not affecting the runtime at all? One of TypeScript's strengths is that it is JavaScript, but you can configure tslint to help detect certain "bad" JavaScript. Or you can switch on…

Perl5 has linters (Perl::Critic, Perl::Lint). And warnings to keep you from using ugly features (if you assert compatibility with the 2010 release 5.12, strict mode is automatically turned on).

JavaScript actually copied its `‘use strict’` syntax from Perl's `use strict;` which in Perl is using a pragma, not a magical string literal that reconfigures the compiler.

You want types? Several systems exist, but the leading implementation is Type::Tiny.

A big part of Perl culture in the late 2000s and early 2010s was focused around rooting out horrible old practices and tutorials, defining good practices, and getting tooling to help. Perl Best Practices came out of in 2005. Some effort to describe these tools and techniques as “modern Perl” followed—check out the inaugural entry of the Modern Perl Books blog from 2009. http://www.modernperlbooks.com/mt/2009/01/

Since Perl5 did what you’re asking for, maybe you should check it out and see what Perl 5 looks like in 2019.

Post reply on HN