Re^7: What's wrong with Perl 6?

C# and Java seem to be doing just fine

Are C# and Java not implemented in "C (or perhaps C++)"? If they are, why do you try to invoke them as counterexamples?

A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight

Comment on Re^7: What's wrong with Perl 6?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: What's wrong with Perl 6? by chromatic (Archbishop) on May 14, 2007 at 15:48 UTC
Because somehow Parrot (written mostly in C) doesn't count for Perl 6, as far as I understood the post to which I replied.	[reply]
Re^9: What's wrong with Perl 6? by demerphq (Chancellor) on May 14, 2007 at 19:17 UTC
I consider a implementation running on parrot to be pretty much an implementation in C. If your original comment meant to imply that since the implementation would be via parrot that it didnt count as an implementation in C then I apologise for the misunderstanding. --- $world=~s/war/peace/g	[reply]
Re^10: What's wrong with Perl 6? by chromatic (Archbishop) on May 14, 2007 at 20:46 UTC
Ah, okay. Yes, I think Parrot's the best long-term strategy for a viable Perl 6 at this point. (Working on it doesn't endear me to C though.)	[reply]