use Perl

I work heavily with an old OO system where this syntax bit us several times with some very hard-to-diagnose bugs. Switching project-wide to direct syntax fixed a ton of these.

Yes, you can probably use this if you are careful and know what you are doing, but the problem I found is many devs don't know about the problems with it (or willingly ignore it). To me it's just easier to code defensively in this case and stick with direct syntax.

In addition to The Perl Foundation being accepted into GSoC 2010, BioPerl is now also part of the Google Summer of Code! The Open Bioinformatics Foundation, which also includes BioPython, BioRuby, and others, has been accepted into the Google Summer of Code for 2010. We are actively looking for students interested in OBF-related bioinformatics projects; new ideas are welcome. Project ideas and other details can be found here:

• Main OBF GSoC page
• BioPerl-specific projects

This isn't the first year BioPerl has been part of GSoC. A successful project was recently published by 2008 GSoC student Mira Han for developing a phyloXML parser for BioPerl.

(original post here)

Okay, good. May be worth a retry then.

This also pops up via one of the CPAN Tester reports

It's a little touchy, but it does work using perl 5.10.1 (haven't tried 5.8.9 yet). Getting some warnings about missing DLLs during the test phase, primarily expat or libxml-related (not sure why).

Also getting tons of 'Subroutine X redefined' warnings, which are pretty harmless but it would be nice to track down why they're popping up. These also occur when testing BioPerl with ActivePerl.

It's a fairly decent start. However, sorry to say but (and I'm putting this politely) I don't think you've exactly endeared yourself to the point where you'll be listened to constructively

Burned bridges and all that. See above comments from you and the varied responses from active Rakudo/Parrot/etc devs for the smoking evidence. It didn't have to be so.

Um, do you mean this reply to pmichaud, where you said you wouldn't send anything? No mention of a butterfly there...

Really, this is getting old. Reply away. You apparently need, nay relish, the last word, and it appears to always be argumentative and contrarian. I've now learned there is no point in continuing to converse with you.

If Damian's reading this I'm sure he would agree, just maybe not on who's incoherent.

Whoops, take that back. Apparently you aren't willing to help out. Sorry to read that, but no great loss, you're only bringing anger (incoherent anger at that) to the table anyway.

You weren't the only one.

I have no problem with anyone voicing their opinion as long as it well-reasoned. What you state above somewhat falls into that category, but it would be nice to know (for instance) what about the site annoys you. The #perl6 folk seem pretty responsive to it.

Yes, but that's not the way it came across, if that's not already clear from the responses you received. The vast majority of your responses were against Perl 6 itself, not the website.

I am glad to see you at least positively responding to pmichaud and maybe helping out a little too.

Agreed on that point, but I would like to get some reasoned responses. The other post I linked to didn't have much sound reasoning, just general douchbaggy-ness.

Just to note, what's particularly funny is I think your instigator dropped in on #perl6 at one point, I think trying to stir the pot. Not sure said instigator knew who s/he was conversing with...