Comment by eritain | Hacker News Reader

Comment by eritain | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

A little of each, and technically neither.

Parrot isn't wholly abandoned, but Reini Urban is the only person still hacking on it. On the other hand, he is the person most likely to bring Parrot back around to being a good backend for Perl 6, so it has that going for it.

Currently no implementation of Perl 6 targets Parrot. Rakudo used to (indeed, was born on Parrot), but suspended support for Parrot in connection with the push to get Rakudo-on-MoarVM up to 6.0.0 quality by Christmas. The Rakudo team were careful not to say they were writing Parrot off, but they also gave no particular criteria for when they would unsuspend it.

(I in no way speak for Rakudo or anyone else, but I suspect the implicit criteria for unsuspension are three: Parrot must demonstrate, in code, that being a good backend for Perl 6 is a higher priority than being a good backend for entirely hypothetical other clients; it must undertake, survive, and complete a major decrufting if not re-architecting; and of course, it must be more interesting, for enough people, to target Parrot than to hack Perl 6 on Moar, JVM, JS, Mono, the perl5 VM, p2, WebAssembly, native code, the Factor VM, or whatever else.)

There are also those who view MoarVM as the new Parrot -- Parrot as it would have been if its implementation hadn't started until it was clear what Perl 6 would really need under it. (Aaaaaand without the technical or political fallout of "let's make a VM for ALL the dynamic languages!")

Hm. Your opinions don't match my recollections.

Aaaaaand without the technical or political fallout of "let's make a VM for ALL the dynamic languages!"

I remember Larry being really keen on that idea. The quote went something like "If everyone complains that CPAN gives Perl an unfair advantage, let's give everyone access to CPAN."

http://www.perl.com/pub/2003/07/16/soto2003.html

I didn't say Larry wasn't keen on a multi-language VM in 2003.[1] I said that Parrot's pursuit of that goal contributed to (an intricately braided series of) technical and political conflicts with Rakudo, culminating in a breakdown of relations between them across 2013-2015.

Why would I think that? I am aware of your recollections. I have read everything you blogged about the collapse of Parrot.

I have also read everything several other people wrote about the inception of MoarVM and the suspension of Parrot support, including key figures from both sides and several third-party observers. I have read the IRC logs of Parrot design meetings, including negotiations with the Rakudo leads, for the period leading up to the rupture. I have read key announcements by Parrot and Rakudo lead designers from earlier than this, wherein I think I see the seeds of the breakdown sown.

I made a detailed study of all this last spring, when I learned about the suspension. I have also been checking in intermittently on Parrot since 2002, and on every Perl 6 implementation I could find since the post-Pugs revival. And since last spring I have been kept aware of your position in particular through sundry comments here and on Reddit; you are a reliable presence whenever someone mentions Perl 6 or Rakudo without condemning it.

I can't speak to specific differences between my opinions and your recollections, since you did not see fit to say what those were. But I am hardly uninformed and I know of no error in what I said (viz., the actual words that I typed).

[1] If I wanted a document to make my point for me, I could hardly do better than the 2003 State of the Onion. Here's where Larry's head was in 2003: Yes, he thought a multi-language VM was just what Perl needed. He also thought that the Perl 6 design was basically done. He clearly didn't think there would be too much difference in kind between Parrot and the p5p runtime, as shown by his speculating that Ponie could be ready to support 5.10 and could entirely replace p5p by 5.12. He had not yet written the Apocalypse on the object system; its release in 2004 is really when it became clear how deep and structural the changes from 5 to 6 would be, and consequently it's also when it really became clear what a VM would need to provide to be good for Perl 6. Heck, in 2003 Larry thought "slow progress" meant a couple of major redesign documents a year, and he thought slow progress was just coming to an end. About the only thing that address was right about is that Larry didn't know very much. (Well, that and the switch statement.) If I'm saying reality disproved early conceptions about the realization of Perl 6, SotO 2003 is Exhibit A.

I made a detailed study of all this last spring

I think that's part of the problem--there are too many post-hoc justifications for why things happened the way they did that ignore what actually happened and why people made the decisions they did.

Dan's Parrot postmortem is still accurate: there just wasn't the will to turn P6 into a real, stable, shipping product, and there wasn't the honest acknowledgement that P6 wouldn't be a realistic replacement for Perl until far too late.

I studied what people said, at the time they decided, about what they decided and why, and I studied the environment in which they decided it. I'm not sure how that adds up to buying into someone's post-hoc justification. But you're welcome anytime to stop merely announcing that you disagree with me and explain what about. I will not belabor that invitation further.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com