3 ms·

Raku is too slow for no obvious reason, plus every lib has to be rewritten from scratch, including the good and mature ones from Perl. There are more interesti

by petre 4y ago

Raku is too slow for no obvious reason, plus every lib has to be rewritten from scratch, including the good and mature ones from Perl. There are more interesting things happening with Ruby and Python. In fact there are Python libs for obscure stuff like CAN-bus and ISO-TP. Want to talk to a vehicle ECU? It can be done with Python. There's also lack of momentum and quite a lot of bikeshedding in the Perl community. There were attempts to modernise Perl by rurban and others, but they were met with unecessary resistence. Without community support they all ended up as one man shows. Perl is pretty much a dead end. You are hearing this from someone who still writes Perl code every day for work. My latest proof of concept was done in Ruby and it will probably end up as production code.

lizmat 4y ago
> Raku is too slow for no obvious reason I wonder when it was the last time you tried Raku. Or compared it to a Perl script with Moose. > plus every lib has to be rewritten from scratch, including the good and mature ones from Perl. The good and mature ones from Perl can be used from Raku with Inline::Perl5.
- petre 4y ago
  I've tried for several iterations until I finally gave up and moved on to Ruby, Racket etc. Moose is quite slow itself. I never use it or anything that depends on it. I use Moo or Mojo::Base instead. Inline::Perl5 is quite an ugly last resort solution. And you still need a Perl intepreter as opposed to calling on C code from D where you just need the libs.
  - lizmat 4y ago
    If you gave up on it, why still keep saying it is slow, when you have no current information about that? Also, when you're talking slow: why is it that any performant Perl module, actually has most of its logic written in XS (aka C)? So I think it's shows quite a bit of hutzpah to call Inline::Perl5 "an ugly last resort solution", whereas a *lot* of upstream CPAN modules rely on the hack that is XS to make them performant. To give you an example: the pure Raku version of Text::CSV is more than 2x as fast as the pure Perl version of Text::CSV.

by petre 4y ago

lizmat 4y ago

> Raku is too slow for no obvious reason I wonder when it was the last time you tried Raku. Or compared it to a Perl script with Moose. > plus every lib has to be rewritten from scratch, including the good and mature ones from Perl. The good and mature ones from Perl can be used from Raku with Inline::Perl5.

petre 4y ago
I've tried for several iterations until I finally gave up and moved on to Ruby, Racket etc. Moose is quite slow itself. I never use it or anything that depends on it. I use Moo or Mojo::Base instead. Inline::Perl5 is quite an ugly last resort solution. And you still need a Perl intepreter as opposed to calling on C code from D where you just need the libs.
- lizmat 4y ago
  If you gave up on it, why still keep saying it is slow, when you have no current information about that? Also, when you're talking slow: why is it that any performant Perl module, actually has most of its logic written in XS (aka C)? So I think it's shows quite a bit of hutzpah to call Inline::Perl5 "an ugly last resort solution", whereas a *lot* of upstream CPAN modules rely on the hack that is XS to make them performant. To give you an example: the pure Raku version of Text::CSV is more than 2x as fast as the pure Perl version of Text::CSV.