Again, I have no interest in telling volunteers what to do, and I'm not Ian Hague or a leader of TPF or a grant manager, so I have no interest in telling paid developers what to do, but I'll tell you the honest truth as I see it: given the history of every Perl 6 implementation so far (and Pugs and Rakudo in specific), I see a lot of interest in writing a compiler but very little evidence of desire to bundle that compiler into a product that real people can use to write and maintain real programs.

(Before you tell me I'm a hypocrite for complaining instead of volunteering, I started contributing to Parrot in 2001 and Perl 6 in 2003. I've paid enough sunk opportunity costs, thank you.)

I believe the current Perl 6 implementations have, as you adroitly put it, "fundamental flaws that aren't being addressed by any future plans for ... development that I've seen so far".

Does the most recent Rakudo Star release represent a worthwhile point for someone to write a serious program in Perl 6? Does the most recent compiler release?

How much work would the average non-committer have had to do to keep a serious program running on the monthly releases? How much research does this entail? (How much work would this have required since the first Rakudo Star release?)

How many non-core modules pass their tests (or run at all) on the most recent compiler release? On HEAD?

Given the Morton's fork of using a stable but buggy release of Rakudo (for which all development has stalled) and an unreleased version with admirable improvements but serious regressions, what is your average user interested in Perl 6 but not interested in writing a compiler to choose?

What's Rakudo's bus number?

Was Rakudo Star a "useful release"? Was it what people hoped? Did it meet expectations? (Did it meet promised expectations?)

What are the plans to address this, if any? (Has anyone asked this question?)

Given the history of the project (and how long it's been "right around the corner now, this time we mean it!"), why should I expect anything different now?

Which parts of this situation suggest to you the words "usable" or "useful"?

Improve your skills with Modern Perl: the free book.

In reply to Re^2: Waiting for a Product, not a Compiler by chromatic
in thread Moose - my new religion by jdrago999

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.