[lizmat]

> that the NQP strategy was going to leave Parrot developers in a dead end

If Parrot had provided all that Perl 6 needed at that time, I don't think the multiple backend strategy would have been selected. Why would one?

> where I said that the NQP strategy was going to leave Parrot developers in a dead end

To me that feels like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Also, had Parrot been able to attract other languages to a significant extent, the abandoning of Parrot by Perl 6 would not have been an issue.

Personally, I think Parrot was not able to attract other languages because:

1. it didn't provide enough benefits to account for the extra effort needed by language developers. It definitely did not for Perl 6 at the time.

2. it didn't have a core team welcoming enough to keep anybody vaguely interested in Parrot

In the end, it is always about being able to create a community in open source. Without it, a project is indeed on a dead end.

[chromatic]

If Parrot had provided all that Perl 6 needed at that time, I don't think the multiple backend strategy would have been selected. Why would one?

Given that the multiple backend strategy only succeeded in replacing an existing backend with another backend several years later without achieving any of the interoperability goals of the JVM or CLR, I'm not even sure how to speculate on the reasoning behind that decision.

Also, had Parrot been able to attract other languages to a significant extent, the abandoning of Parrot by Perl 6 would not have been an issue.

You haven't addressed my point that NQP yanking the rug out from most other languages running on Parrot harmed Parrot. That seems like a material concern.

it didn't have a core team welcoming enough to keep anybody vaguely interested in Parrot

You haven't addressed my point that I personally spent multiple months offering to make Parrot better fit NQP/PCT for P6 and was repeatedly rebuffed.

[b2gills]

> Given that the multiple backend strategy only succeeded in replacing an existing backend with another backend several years later without achieving any of the interoperability goals of the JVM or CLR, I'm not even sure how to speculate on the reasoning behind that decision.

Umm. It runs on MoarVM, JVM, and JavaScript. How is that not multiple backends?

If I remember correctly, the JVM port predates the existence of MoarVM.

Granted the JVM port has only ever been a second tier backend. Partially because it only supports Java's level of Unicode support.

---

> You haven't addressed my point that I personally spent multiple months offering to make Parrot better fit NQP/PCT for P6 and was repeatedly rebuffed.

Yeah, because that really wasn't the main problem.

The main problem with Parrot was that the intermediate NQP/PCT code supporting it needed a complete rewrite.

The intermediate code for supporting MoarVM, JVM, and JS are all very similar. They are also significantly different to how Parrot was handled.

There is relatively little backend specific code in Rakudo itself for the three current ones. There was a lot of backend specific code in Rakudo for Parrot. Instead the vagaries of the different backends is mainly handled by NQP.

That means that if you made Parrot work better the way Rakudo-on-NQP-on-Parrot was at the time, it would have been a wasted effort.

---

Imagine the effort you were talking about doing was like tunnelling through a mountain.

The problem is that Rakudo-on-NQP-on-Parrot was going around the mountain instead.

Sure you would have reduced the total length. The problem is that you would have to create a new tunnel in a different direction once Rakudo-on-NQP-on-Parrot instead started tunnelling straight through the mountain to meet you.

Pretty sure that's why they told you to not do that.

[chromatic]

That means that if you made Parrot work better the way Rakudo-on-NQP-on-Parrot was at the time, it would have been a wasted effort.

Two thoughts.

First, that wasn't my plan. We were actively working on the Lorito plan to reduce the total amount of C in Parrot and eliminate the need to write C to extend Parrot, just as you suggested needed to happen in another reply.

Second, it would have been nice to sit down and come up with a plan, rather than Jonathan and Patrick deciding all of this on their own, not telling Parrot developers, and then spending years complaining that Parrot developers weren't responsive to their needs even after their antics had chased away pretty much all Parrot developers.

Granted the JVM port has only ever been a second tier backend.

Ah, so frittering away a bunch of developer time and developers helped them halfway reach a goal years later.

As predicted.

[lizmat]

Given that the multiple backend strategy only succeeded in replacing an existing backend with another backend several years later without achieving any of the interoperability goals of the JVM or CLR, I'm not even sure how to speculate on the reasoning behind that decision.

I'd say, it turned out to be more difficult than expected?

You haven't addressed my point that NQP yanking the rug out from most other languages running on Parrot harmed Parrot. That seems like a material concern.

I guess I don't understand how NQP would be yanking the rug out from other languages, technically speaking? That it could be seen as a vote of no-confidence: well such is life in the open source world.

You haven't addressed my point that I personally spent multiple months offering to make Parrot better fit NQP/PCT for P6 and was repeatedly rebuffed.

Not having been around at that time, I don't think it is up to me to address that point. If you were rebuffed, I can only surmise that interpersonal and technical relationships had already soured enough not to trust the validity of your offer. Note: I'm not saying that the intent of your offer was questioned.