|
Posted by Uri Guttman on May 3, 2008, 2:24 am
Please log in for more thread options
BB> On Sat, 03 May 2008 04:08:39 +0000, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> >> also there is no corporate or financial backing and it is all
>> >> volunteer work.
BB> You state above "there is no corporate or financial backing", then you go
BB> on to state
>> there is some financial support for
>> perl6 via TPF and microgrants. in fact the mozilla foundation (another
>> project with plenty of corporate support) is one of the sponsors of
>> perl6 development
nothing compared to the larger foundations i mentioned. mozilla and
apache have sponsored or donated full time developers working for
them. tpf and perl6 have nothing like that. so of course work on perl6
is slower than those. and in many ways perl6 is much more complex than
mozilla or apache. those don't have nearly the theoretical issues than a
cutting edge language has.
BB> It seems to me more like you're being evasive than worrying about clutter.
huh? i pointed you to the wiki. how is that evasive? go read it and the
tons of perl6 material it links to. no need to bother this group.
uri
--
Uri Guttman ------ uri@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
--------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------
|
|
Posted by szr on May 3, 2008, 1:00 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Uri Guttman wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 03 May 2008 04:08:39 +0000, Uri Guttman wrote:
> >> >> also there is no corporate or financial backing and it is all
> >> >> volunteer work.
>
>> You state above "there is no corporate or financial backing", then
>> you go on to state
>
> >> there is some financial support for
> >> perl6 via TPF and microgrants. in fact the mozilla foundation
> (another >> project with plenty of corporate support) is one of the
> sponsors of >> perl6 development
>
> nothing compared to the larger foundations i mentioned. mozilla and
> apache have sponsored or donated full time developers working for
> them. tpf and perl6 have nothing like that.
While I agree we all need to be patient, one might reasonably think that
8+ years is a rather long time to be working on one single piece of
software, no? I can personally understand the want to perfect everything
and finish all the intended features and fish out bugs, but I think most
would agree that is a rather long development time.
Compare this to the inital development of Perl 5:
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl ]
Perl 4 went through a series of maintenance releases, culminating
in Perl 4.036 in 1993. At that point, Larry Wall abandoned Perl 4
to begin work on Perl 5.
and
Perl 5 was released on October 17, 1994. It was a nearly complete
rewrite of the interpreter, and added many new features to the
language [...]
It took less than 2 years to get a initial release out. Granted, Perl
has grown and Perl 6 will be much bigger, but I don't see how one cannot
say this is taking a bit long, and that "second system syndrome" [1]
isn't playing a role in that.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_system_syndrome
--
szr
|
|
Posted by brian d foy on May 4, 2008, 4:47 pm
Please log in for more thread options wrote:
> While I agree we all need to be patient, one might reasonably think that
> 8+ years is a rather long time to be working on one single piece of
> software, no?
Maybe, but no one started writing code right away, so the Perl 6
implementations are younger than the idea of Perl 6.
I really consider the real work to have started around 2005. People
sorta wandered around for a bit after the coding got started and only
really hit on the right path and right group of people around that
time. No one really wants to talk about that though, and are content to
let people think it's just taking a long time rather than admit having
problems at first.
|
|
Posted by Uri Guttman on May 3, 2008, 12:15 am
Please log in for more thread options
BB> It would be nice to have some kind of information from the front
BB> line, without having to trawl through endless technical
BB> complexities on mailing list archives. If nobody has enough of an
BB> overall grasp of its progress that they can summarize it, that in
BB> itself is rather worrying. Also the fact that you adopt an
BB> aggressive tone when asked about progress tends to indicate that
BB> something is going wrong.
BB> This kind of talking reminds me very much of the comments around
BB> the GNU Hurd kernel project ten years ago.
in another post i pointed you to the perl6 wiki. and its FUD FAQ page
will answer most of your negative questions:
http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6/index.cgi?fud
uri
--
Uri Guttman ------ uri@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
--------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------
|
|
Posted by Ben Bullock on May 3, 2008, 1:28 am
Please log in for more thread options On Sat, 03 May 2008 04:15:12 +0000, Uri Guttman wrote:
> in another post i pointed you to the perl6 wiki. and its FUD FAQ page
> will answer most of your negative questions:
>
> http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6/index.cgi?fud
Thank you, but I have seen that page before, and it and many similar web
pages are exactly what scares me about Perl 6. It's the Hans Reiser
defence, the "if I think of enough excuses, people are bound to believe
it" method of defending a project. Why would anyone need to write a page
like that, unless things actually were going wrong? The problem for Hans
Reiser was that the more excuses he made, the worse he made himself look.
In the end he was convicted based more on his bizarre excuses than
anything else. Perl 6 has a similar problem, the people who try to defend
it are making it look worse.
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language? | May 2, 2008, 3:40 am |
| Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language? | May 3, 2008, 1:30 am |
| Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language? | May 4, 2008, 1:12 pm |
| Calling a SQL Server Stored Procedure from within Perl | November 21, 2007, 10:41 am |
| (and, ) just how is perl6 coming along? when maybe tryable, usable, reliable? | April 12, 2006, 3:09 pm |
| install_driver(Oracle) failed: Can't load 'C:/Perl/site/lib/auto/DBD/Oracle/Oracle.dll' for module DBD::Oracle: load_file:The specified procedure could not be found at C:/Perl/lib/DynaLoader.pm line 230. | October 14, 2005, 3:08 am |
| Language Perl | June 19, 2007, 3:53 am |
| question about variable procedure call | February 14, 2005, 3:02 pm |
| FAQ 7.1: Can I get a BNF/yacc/RE for the Perl language? | November 19, 2004, 12:03 am |
| FAQ 7.1: Can I get a BNF/yacc/RE for the Perl language? | December 28, 2004, 6:03 am |
|
XML Sitemap