perl6 and Parrot 0.5.2 Released

mAriuZ writes "Bob Rogers just released Parrot 0.5.2. This monthly release includes a couple of interesting new features. First, we've bundled Patrick Michaud's Rakudo (thats the implementation of Perl 6 on Parrot) such that you can type make perl6 on Unixy platforms and make perl6.exe on Windows and get a working standalone Perl 6 binary. This is experimental and we hope to iron out some installation and deployment issues by next months release, but it was important to demonstrate our progress. The second new feature is a toolkit for starting your own compiler. Max Mohun built a prototype several months ago, and we've added a stripped-down version for now that builds the skeleton of a compiler for you using the Parrot Compiler Tools. I mentioned the LOLCODE compiler in What the Perl 6 and Parrot Hackers Did on Their Christmas Vacation; this is how Simon and Company were able to get LOLCODE up and running so quickly."

Comments

I'm sorry, but...

[Besna]

Really will lose Karma here (but probably to off-topic). I know nerds can feel helpless--abandoned by chicks and politicians. I just want to whatever I can. That means not using software by Donald Knuth, Larry Wall, Matz (Ruby), or other religious programmers. I got word that Python's creator, Guido, is an atheist. So--being that they are similar, I just cannot choose one that is made by a religious person. Do what you can. If you have to use it for work--fine. If you have a choice--choose the atheist. Choose the one who thinks freely.

Re:I'm sorry, but...

[Wiseman1024]

You're working on the assumption that I am a wasteful person Which is, statistically (and especially coming from someone who just mocked it) easier to defend than working on the assumption that I'm some sort of theist atheist.

The problem with people so anxious to write off the (possible) existence of God is that they seek to make the evidence fit their views, instead of letting their views change in view of the evidence. (The same might be said for some, though not all, people of faith. You know, your unfair treatment of the unblind ones kind of disqualifies you from this conversation, especially if we're trying to use logic.

Even if the evolutionary theory is actually closer to an hypothesis (and there'll be people who will argue against this, but I don't need to), a sound, probably incomplete (numerical probability) hypothesis is better than a cheap wildcard solution to every problem that can't stand on its own.

As for your statement that "faith" is a problem, think a little more about what "faith" is. Think about it the next time you go to sit-- will the chair hold you? I don't know for sure, and I sure as hell don't have blind faith on that (if I don't have faith on Santa, the tooth fairy, or your favourite imaginary friend, how would I have faith in a chair!?). I sit on it because I need to, and because it's likely that it'll stand my weight. Likewise, I go out because I need to, and because it's likely that I won't get robbed or killed, though I would be an idiot if I had such faith. Faith is for idiots. Smart people work on informed guesses, and never convert initial assumptions into facts by art of magic.