Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW

Propaganda for P6 Advocates

by chromatic (Archbishop)
on Aug 06, 2013 at 16:48 UTC ( #1048142=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re^8: A $dayjob Perl 6 program that runs 40x faster on the JVM than on Parrot
in thread A $dayjob Perl 6 program that runs 40x faster on the JVM than on Parrot

While the details are of course different I find dukeleto's description of MoarVM as "the spiritual successor to M0" apt.

With all due respect, you find it apt because you don't know anything about M0.

Your strategy of finding random quotes from IRC which, when taken out of context, appear to support whatever you're trying to argue at the moment is not research. It's propaganda—done badly, at that.

If you were truly interested in M0, any decent search engine, or even a trawl through one of several Perl 6 and Parrot Links pages, would have taken you to an article written in 2011 by one of the designers and developers of Lorito and M0. That article is Less Magic, Less C, A Faster Parrot, which says:

The current stage of Lorito is M0, the "zero magic" layer of implementing a handful of operations which provide the language semantics of C without dragging along the C execution model. In other words, it's a language powerful enough to do everything we use C for without actually being C. It offers access to raw memory, basic mathematical operations, and Turing-complete branching while not relying on the C stack and C calling conventions.

This was the core of both the M0 design and Lorito itself.

If you'd bothered to find that, let alone understand it, I hope you wouldn't have posted such nonsense. MoarVM may have a fine design, but unless it's taking the Squeak Slang approach (or the Forth approach or...) that M0 intended, MoarVM has nothing substantive in common with M0. The only reasonable interpretation of dukeleto's comment is that it's metonymy, where "a smaller, simpler VM (via reimplementation as Moar)" is similar to "a smaller, simpler VM (via M0)".

Metonymy is not, of course, an exhaustive technical explanation.

Your lack of research and your apparent disregard for the truth of what happened—even when you're corrected by the people who were actually there, who actually designed and implemented the subjects under discussion—makes both you and P6 look bad. If you're trying to advocate for P6, you're doing a terrible job.

I shouldn't have to keep telling you this.

If you don't think an NQP/MVM "hello world" counts as Perl 6 code...

After thirteen years, I don't care about potential. If and when something passes the P6 spec tests, I'll take it seriously as a P6 implementation.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Propaganda for P6 Advocates
by raiph (Deacon) on Aug 08, 2013 at 09:01 UTC
    I had already read several descriptions of M0, from the first time I heard about it in 2011, including the one you quoted. Aiui the MoarVM approach is to start with a version written in hand coded C (and stick with that through 6.0.0) and then rewrite MoarVM and its JIT in (a subset of) Perl 6. This still makes sense to me as the appropriate P6/Rakudo/NQP flavored version of M0 thinking.

    But am definitely out of my depth, and the OP was about Rakudo/JVM, so I'm going to quit talking about M0 and MoarVM.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1048142]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others surveying the Monastery: (3)
As of 2023-09-30 09:16 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found