3 ms·

From the accounts I've read, during that time, Rakudo and Parrot were always run by different teams that had a limited understanding of each others' perspective

From the accounts I've read, during that time, Rakudo and Parrot were always run by different teams that had a limited understanding of each others' perspective. The P6 design team had been having weekly phone calls for years. Patrick (Rakudo pumpking) and Allison (Parrot architect) were both regularly on the calls. As you might expect from any kind of regular meeting, there were occasional disagreements, but the purpose of those conferences was to guide the convergent development of both projects. I used those calls to figure out what I should work on within Parrot to help Rakudo. Technically, moving the projects into separate repositories and onto different change schedules seemed to have worked out badly. From the outside, that probably looks like the point at which the projects really started to diverge, but I think it was a symptom. Near the start of Parrot, a lot of people thought P6 was an ambitious project that'd never amount to anything and they wanted Parrot to succeed with or without P6. At some point, enough people within Rakudo decided that they didn't want to be tied to Parrot forever that they wanted an alternate backend.

raiph 12y ago
> At some point, enough people within Rakudo decided that they didn't want to be tied to Parrot forever that they wanted an alternate backend. Aiui Patrick read Larry Wall's 2001 Apocalypse #1 (http://www.perl6.org/archive/doc/design/apo/A01.html http://www.perl6.org/archive/doc/design/apo/A01.html) and took it into account before he started Rakudo. It includes the following statement: > "Multiple backends are a necessity of the world we live in today. Perl 6 must not be limited to running only on platforms that can be programmed in C. It must be able to run in other kinds of virtual machines, such as those supported by Java and C#." That statement didn't require that any given P6 compiler be multi backend, but I would guess Patrick was thinking something like the following about P6 and Rakudo (first, my guess about his thoughts when he started it; then, about his thoughts a year or so later): * Parrot would hopefully be a good host for a P6 compiler at the start and remain that way; OR, if not, it would evolve to become a good host (ie the convergence which you mention). * After Rakudo on Parrot was "done", some P6 compiler, possibly Rakudo, would eventually be ported to JVM, CLR, and other existing VMs, as tuits and priorities allowed. Later (2005?), as it became clear that Parrot was not a good fit architecturally for P6's / Rakudo's needs, he presumably responded. I'm guessing his thinking was something like this: * Parrot and P6/Rakudo might sufficiently converge. This would avoid Rakudo having to focus, before an initial implementation was sufficiently "done", on porting. So Patrick should encourage convergence as best he could. * Parrot and P6/Rakudo might not sufficiently converge. This would be an existential threat to Rakudo. So he should have developed a plan B. It should have been obvious to him that this would take several years and would best be avoided if at all possible, but he should have had a plan B. Fast forward to 2009: > "Putting Perl on JVM was always a kind of thought ... but was never really serious until summer of 2009 ..." This is from the first minute of the video of Patrick's YAPC::NA 2013 talk "Perl on JVM". I found the whole talk interesting but the first 10 minutes are particularly instructive in relation to the things we're discussing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgPh5Li3k4g&list=PLRuESFRW2Fa77XObvk7-BYVFwobZHdXdK&index=18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgPh5Li3k4g&list=PLRuESFRW2F...
- chromatic 12y ago
  Please stop guessing at things and do the hard research and look through mailing list archives and sixperl call summaries. Alternately, ask people who were there. (I was one of those people.) You're spreading misinformation, and you've been told this enough times that it seems deliberate.
  - raiph 12y ago
    > Please stop guessing at things Imo, all is fair if you predeclare ("mere armchair analysis"). > do the hard research I've spent a colossal amount of time reading P6 and Parrot mailing lists, IRC logs, etc. I'd estimate more than a thousand hours since 2000. > sixperl call summaries I've looked for an online transcript or summary of sixperl calls before. I'm failing to find them with search engines now. Would you be willing to share a link or private copy? > ask the people who were there I've attempted private exchanges about this stuff with some folk who were there. The general response is a reluctance to talk about it. What little I get beyond that doesn't seem consistent with the picture you paint. > You're spreading misinformation If anything I said is wrong, please point out the specific issues. Thanks.

raiph 12y ago

> At some point, enough people within Rakudo decided that they didn't want to be tied to Parrot forever that they wanted an alternate backend. Aiui Patrick read Larry Wall's 2001 Apocalypse #1 (http://www.perl6.org/archive/doc/design/apo/A01.html http://www.perl6.org/archive/doc/design/apo/A01.html) and took it into account before he started Rakudo. It includes the following statement: > "Multiple backends are a necessity of the world we live in today. Perl 6 must not be limited to running only on platforms that can be programmed in C. It must be able to run in other kinds of virtual machines, such as those supported by Java and C#." That statement didn't require that any given P6 compiler be multi backend, but I would guess Patrick was thinking something like the following about P6 and Rakudo (first, my guess about his thoughts when he started it; then, about his thoughts a year or so later): * Parrot would hopefully be a good host for a P6 compiler at the start and remain that way; OR, if not, it would evolve to become a good host (ie the convergence which you mention). * After Rakudo on Parrot was "done", some P6 compiler, possibly Rakudo, would eventually be ported to JVM, CLR, and other existing VMs, as tuits and priorities allowed. Later (2005?), as it became clear that Parrot was not a good fit architecturally for P6's / Rakudo's needs, he presumably responded. I'm guessing his thinking was something like this: * Parrot and P6/Rakudo might sufficiently converge. This would avoid Rakudo having to focus, before an initial implementation was sufficiently "done", on porting. So Patrick should encourage convergence as best he could. * Parrot and P6/Rakudo might not sufficiently converge. This would be an existential threat to Rakudo. So he should have developed a plan B. It should have been obvious to him that this would take several years and would best be avoided if at all possible, but he should have had a plan B. Fast forward to 2009: > "Putting Perl on JVM was always a kind of thought ... but was never really serious until summer of 2009 ..." This is from the first minute of the video of Patrick's YAPC::NA 2013 talk "Perl on JVM". I found the whole talk interesting but the first 10 minutes are particularly instructive in relation to the things we're discussing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgPh5Li3k4g&list=PLRuESFRW2Fa77XObvk7-BYVFwobZHdXdK&index=18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgPh5Li3k4g&list=PLRuESFRW2F...

chromatic 12y ago
Please stop guessing at things and do the hard research and look through mailing list archives and sixperl call summaries. Alternately, ask people who were there. (I was one of those people.) You're spreading misinformation, and you've been told this enough times that it seems deliberate.
- raiph 12y ago
  > Please stop guessing at things Imo, all is fair if you predeclare ("mere armchair analysis"). > do the hard research I've spent a colossal amount of time reading P6 and Parrot mailing lists, IRC logs, etc. I'd estimate more than a thousand hours since 2000. > sixperl call summaries I've looked for an online transcript or summary of sixperl calls before. I'm failing to find them with search engines now. Would you be willing to share a link or private copy? > ask the people who were there I've attempted private exchanges about this stuff with some folk who were there. The general response is a reluctance to talk about it. What little I get beyond that doesn't seem consistent with the picture you paint. > You're spreading misinformation If anything I said is wrong, please point out the specific issues. Thanks.