Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

chromatic (983)

chromatic
  (email not shown publicly)
http://wgz.org/chromatic/

Blog Information [technorati.com] Profile for chr0matic [technorati.com]

Journal of chromatic (983)

Friday April 18, 2008
08:54 PM

Those with Loaded Mouths, and Those Who Code

[ #36197 ]

This is complete vaporware. The constraints and software development link above is just annoying. There is no excuse for an 8 year long dev effort with no milestones or end in sight. We could have had a nice language by now with some simple features like parameter lists...but we're stuck with Perl 5 circa 1996 because some people got big useless ideas into their heads and hijacked what was once a useful technology and turned it into an obsolete pile of code about as valueable as awk or sed. The article should really begin to change, from a "whats new and cool in [Perl 6]" to "why [Perl 6] was such an utter failure". the [Perl 6] team has failed us all.

Justforasecond, Personal Comments on the Perl 6 discussion page on Wikipedia

If my economics are wrong, show me. If my math is wrong, show me. If you know the secret to software development, show me. Here's zero dollars and the source code. Fix everything you can about Perl 5. See you in two years.

Here's 1084 patches I've made or applied to Parrot in the past three years. Not coincidentally, I've had actual Perl 6 code running in public for about the same amount of time. You can find it if you search the web. Of course, you can find Perl 6 and Parrot milestones if you search the web too.

P.S. Perl 5.10, circa 2007 is quite decent. Try upgrading to software released this millennium.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Perl 5.8 anno 2008 is quite decent. Not the language in particular, you can find a lot of things to grieve about. But the development environment, the language culture is one of the most efficient you can find today.

    but we're stuck with Perl 5 circa 1996

    Anyone who thinks that Perl 2008 is just remotely like Perl 1996 should have his perception ability examined.

    From the 1996 Perl thinking "we don't need no steenking objects" over the new milenium's "it's my code, I will obfuscate it" we've arrived at a

  • On the topic, Perl 6. I think you miss the point this user is trying to make. As I see it, he would be happy with a Perl 5 with better parameter passing and smaller things like this. An he thinks that Perl 6 has prevented this.

    I'm not sure about this. Would Perl people have made a 5.10 with better features years ago if there hadn't been a Perl 6 effort? Or would we all have gone to new, more exciting languages?

    It's true, it seems that development of new features Perl 5 was more or less stopped for some tim
    • Would we have Moose if Perl had a strict object system?

      See Joose [google.com] for an example of Moose-ness in Javascript, although to be fair the JS object system is not really so strict, but certainly not as loose as Perl.

      And if you want to see something really scary, take a look at this Java version of the Perl 6 metamodel which Moose was based on [cpan.org]. If ever there was a strict object system, Java would be it. Of course the surface syntax of a Java-Moose would be intensely verbose and completely unusable unless you basically implemented some kind of pre-processing synt

    • As I see it, he would be happy with a Perl 5 with better parameter passing and smaller things like this. An he thinks that Perl 6 has prevented this.

      History doesn't support experiments; there's no way of knowing if that's true. Also I suspect that if you found ten people dissatisfied with some aspect of Perl 5 and asked them to design one feature apiece to fix Perl 5, they'd all choose something different. (History supports that assertion. We call it the Perl 6 RFC process. It didn't work. I'm not

  • I've removed the comment from the talk page and applied the "not a forum" template at the top, plus given the user in question a slap on the wrist.
  • If my economics are wrong, show me. [...] If you know the secret to software development, show me.

    Let's try to do just that.

    Here's zero dollars and the source code. Fix everything you can about Perl 5. See you in two years.

    I disagree with your economics. While the sums spent on Perl 6 development were certainly not vast, it may actually be one of the better funded open source language developments out there, certainly compared with Perl 5 during the late 20th century period in which I followed it c

    • Are Ruby, Python, Lua, and, for that matter, Perl 5.x, really better funded than Perl 6?

      Charles Nutter, Ola Bini, John Lam, and at least one more person I'm forgetting at the moment are all funded Ruby implementation developers.

      Guido van Rossum is a funded Python developer. I don't know whether to count Alex Martelli. Jim Hugunin is a funded Python developer.

      I don't know who's funded to work on Lua. I thought it was a research project from Roberto's university, but I haven't confirmed that just n

      • Charles Nutter, Ola Bini, John Lam, and at least one more person I'm forgetting at the moment are all funded Ruby implementation developers.

        My impression is that Nutter & Bini are on JRuby and Lam is on IronRuby, so I'm not sure they should count for funding of the mainline interpreter.

        Guido van Rossum is a funded Python developer.

        Full time? My impression was that he had other duties at Google as well.

        To find funded Perl 5 developers, you have to go to ActiveState

        Who, I believe, tend to fu

        • ... if you look at it over the almost 8 years of Perl 6 development, rather than on a monthly cash-flow basis, it is not all that insubstantial either.

          Let's take the $150,000 paid to Larry, Damian, and Dan, the $70,000 from NL.net, the $10,000 from the Mozilla Foundation, $3000 from Vienna.pm, and $20,000 from various Summer of Code projects. That's $255,000 over eight years for a language design, at least one modern virtual machine, and one implementation. That's just under $32,000 per year.

          I invit

          • ... if you look at it over the almost 8 years of Perl 6 development, rather than on a monthly cash-flow basis, it is not all that insubstantial either.

            Let's take the $150,000 paid to Larry, Damian, and Dan, the $70,000 from NL.net, the $10,000 from the Mozilla Foundation, $3000 from Vienna.pm, and $20,000 from various Summer of Code projects. That's $255,000 over eight years for a language design, at least one modern virtual machine, and one implementation. That's just under $32,000 per year.

            My point