While being blocked from p5p I had to read a new outragious statement by a porter. Who is in reality not a porter like me, just some developer who happens to have no idea what he is talking about.
He struggles with his new super-op OP_SIGNATURE which is at second thought a better idea then the old way to assign lexical values from the call stack at the begin of subroutines, just that it cannot take the stack values, it has to go through an intermediate @_ copy, but that is just an implementation detail which can be optimized away, and goes then on like this:
Also, every op/optree related internals change now involves fixups to B and Deparse, so every change is that much more work.
If I could travel back in time and stop Malcolm B. writing B and friends, I would in an instant. Perl now would have been far, far better, and probably a lot more truly extensible than it is now.
The realisation that B (and B::C etc) were a failed experiment was one of the drivers of perl6. It's been an albatross round perl5's neck ever since.
Dear Dave, are you completely out of your mind?
I know that you all don't want to maintain your reflection API and AST. p5p was also not able to maintain B::C and the other 2 compilers, so I had to step up and fix it for them. Even if p5p is unwiling to fix the outstanding problems they create and is still doing more damage than good, B::C is a huge success story.
B::Generate, optimizer and types are not so easy to fix because there the damage done by p5p is too outragious that it can only be fixed in a forked version of perl. I still have to maintain patchsets in my perlall build suite (perlall build --patch=Compiler) to be able to create perls without those roadblocks. And to support windows, because p5p is not willing to export the needed API functions.
To the success
B::C passes the complete core testsuite. B::C compiled code is faster and smaller than uncompiled perl. Look at the B::CC and rperl benchmarks. We are close to v8 and in the next step we will be there.
B::C is successfully used in production by cPanel, which is in fact the largest and most successful company using perl. We just don't shout it out as loud as Booking.com, because we are privately held and we don't need to publish our numbers. Nevertheless cPanel is the facto one of the backbones of the internet, used by ca 70% of all webhosters worldwide, with compiled perl applications and its distribution based on CentOS.
We have to compile perl to have a low memory footprint for our daemons. They need to be smaller than apache and mysql at least, and they need to run on hosting VM's which are low on memory.
Even with p5p non-ability to come up with non-bloated versions of their releases, and their non-ability to come up with any improvements since 5.6, B::C is a huge success.
Dave and Nick, you are the real albatros around perl5's neck for years. Finally stop doing your destructive work, step back and let the people do the work who got a track record and have an idea what they are doing. You both got paid for years to work to improve perl5 and the results are hopeless. One year to fix eval in regex? My dear.
Still not a single feature written and discussed by p5p was ever successful, besides the trivial defined-or syntax. The only non-trivial improvement in the last years came from outside and was initially heavily critized and not understood. ("Why do we need another hash table implementation?") But will this lead eventually to an efficient implementation of classes, roles (mixins), polymorphism and types? Or a better runloop. For sure not. This is shot down since 2002, and everybody who was able to do that and was interested left p5p. Not about talking fixing the easy stuff like smartmatch, switch, given/when or even hash tables. You just gave up.
I have to do my work now behind closed doors.
Stop doing your destructive work, start listening to advice and maybe even implement a good feature or library. Like OP_MULTIDEREF which is nice. Even if it just tampers around the fact that the runloop is too big and slow.
Without B perl5 would have been more successful?
What a ridiculous statement. Inspecting the AST, the optree, how perl compiles its ops? Certainly totally outragious. Nobody would need that. You even refused to accept documentation for the optree. You are just bitching about your need for B::Deparse and B::Concise test updates. Who needs precise optree representations? It's just an implementation detail. The functionality needs to be tested not how it looks internally.
But maybe you'll eventually learn how the optree (i.e. the AST) looks like, when you are forced to update some B modules. I'll do the rest for you anyway for the parts you do not understand.
Realize that your work is looking worse than PHP.