The Parrot is dead. Long live the Parrot?

Gerhard R. gerd.r.devel at
Sun Feb 10 15:03:55 UTC 2013

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Allison Randal <allison at> wrote:

> [...] But, it has all the baggage of project legacy, reputation, and
> relations
> with other projects, without the advantages of existing code.

Publicity wise, it's all in how you spin it: 'Parrot: Resurrection' has a
nice ring to it ;). As far as relations with other projects go (we're
talking about Rakudo here, right?) - there might have been a bit of
badmouthing on IRC, twitter and reddit, but that's ok as long as the people
who matter remain reasonable.

> [...] Yet another grand plan for the architecture is no better
> than what we have, if it isn't executed. This isn't an academic
> exercise, we don't get points for thinking about cool things. The only
> measure of success that matters is real use in the real world, and
> Parrot (and Rakudo, and Perl 6) have so far utterly failed by that
> standard [...]

13 years ago, no one knew what Perl6 would look like and require in terms
of VM primitives. Now we do.

> Your quick notes on
>, sound like the exact
> same things we were saying in Parrot 6 years ago. That's not necessarily
> a bad thing, but chances are that different results will only be
> achieved by setting different goals and meeting them with different
> strategies.

As far as I remember, Lorito/m0 design never went beyond 'This is our new
runcore and bytecode. By magic and pixy dust, it integrates with the
existing infrastructure'. We need to start with NQP's needs (6model, QAST,
regex, serialization) and come up with a good story from that end. 6 years
ago, Rakudo internals were in no shape to do this.

This plan requires substantial buy-in from Rakudo, which they've been
> hesitant to give. Maybe they've just been burned in the past, and would
> gain enthusiasm as their needs were met. That's a big "Maybe" with a lot
> riding on it.

I don't really see that problem. The main point of the Rakudo devs is that
they don't want to work on or maintain a codebase that has yet to prove its
worth. I can't image that they would have anything against someone else
doing it.

[...] I agree with Brian's comment that focusing on just "Parrot-light" has
> a
> better chance of success than trying to do both that and a re-design on
> the "big VM".

See my reply to Brian.

-- gerdr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the parrot-dev mailing list