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

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Perl6 site...really...I give up 27 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.

  • The source code for the site is available. Commit access is easy to get. If you have a better design, nothing stands in the way of your improvements.

    • About ten years of lost progress stand in the way of improvements. Need I list the number of programming languages that came and went in that time?

      Thankfully I am not paying for any of the group developing perl 6, I would be pretty annoyed if that were the case.

      I can fix the webpage, sure. I cannot, however, fix the last 10 years of perl 6 debacle.

      • About ten years of lost progress stand in the way of improvements.

        Are you really meaning to imply that there has been no progress on Perl (5 or 6) for the last ten years?

        Need I list the number of programming languages that came and went in that time?

        Yes, I think that would be very useful to me.

        Pm

        • I'm not implying, I'm saying that perl 6 is to perl what "heaven's gate" was to Michael Cimino's directorial career.

          Perl 5 is great, but the sheer amount of resources that have been put into vapourwareperl6 is mind-boggling. And *please* don't point me to some project saying "you can use it now" because you *know* perl 6 is not production quality.

          • To clarify: There has been a little bit of progress on perl 5, namely perl 5.10. Perl 6 is a disaster, a train-wreck, a lot of sweat (including mine) lost forever in a project that should have been finished 8 years ago.

            • Yet here you are, wasting even more time, and in an ignoble effort to boot, namely, devaluing the sweat of the people who have come after you – not to mention that you’re exposing yourself to the risk of having to eat your words. Hopefully you’re at least enjoying it?

              • You really don't believe that the perl 6 effort has set us back?

                • I’d the last person on Earth to claim that Perl 6 has been smooth sailing.

                  But are you certain about which is the symptom and which is the disease?

                  • No, of course I'm not certain! I don't think anyone can be.

                    But did it have to become a research effort? I love computer science, but isn't it better to just release early and often?

                    I love lots of the ideas in perl 6, but come on, do we need all that cruft at the same time in one mega package? "It'll be done for Christmas" give me a break, it's embarrassing.

                    I would start with data structures, then objects, etc. Try to target the JVM at first. Baby steps in technology, giant leaps in delivery. Maybe even r

                    • But did it have to become a research effort?

                      How is it a research effort any more than any other language? Long-term sustainability is a research project. So is cross-domain applicability.

                      ... isn't it better to just release early and often?

                      Rakudo's had monthly releases since its inception. How much earlier or more often would you like?

                      Try to target the JVM at first.

                      Good luck. You'll get lost in a maze of trampolines trying to implement laziness for data structures. Non-linear control flow will mak

            • ... a project that should have been finished 8 years ago.

              How in the world would you have possibly finished Perl 6 eight years ago, with the resources available eight years ago, the volunteer effort available eight years ago, and the knowledge of Perl 6 available eight years ago?

              How long should it take to invent a lexically overrideable, self-hosting grammar engine and build a complete, coherent, consistent language around that? If you're doing that in 2001, you don't have the advantage of hindsight and h

              • By reducing the scope drastically. Perl 6has been so extremely over-scoped from the beginning it's insane.
                • By reducing the scope drastically. Perl 6has been so extremely over-scoped from the beginning it's insane.

                  But then it wouldn't have been what Larry wanted for Perl 6.

                  --

                  --
                  xoa

            • To clarify: There has been a little bit of progress on perl 5, namely perl 5.10.

              Somehow I don't believe that Moose, DBIx::Class, Catalyst, etc. reasonably qualify as "a little bit of progress". I think they represent significant advancements. (And if I'm not mistaken, many of the ideas in Moose directly stem from concepts coming out of the design and implementation of Perl 6.)

              I also notice you have thus far not listed "any of the programming languages that have come and gone in [the past ten years]", pe

              • I was not clear enough. I am a big fan of Moose, etc and did not want to belittle what perl 5 is. I just wanted to point out that, by wasting so much time with Perl 6, we lost a lot of work that could have gone to perl 5.

              • You are not mistaken. Moose draws on Perl 6 (and/or Perl 6's influences) for much of its feature set.

            • Let's not feed the trolls. I don't think any amount of convincing will work with ank [perl.org], judging by his past comments (pretty much flame-bait with nothing positive to say).

            • a project that should have been finished 8 years ago.

              On what do you base that timeline? Anything other than "That's what I would have liked?"

              --

              --
              xoa

                • Now I see the problem. You're conflating estimates from past project leaders with what "should" happen. This is an easy discrepancy to solve: Those past estimates were terribly wrong. Don't carry on the expectation that those estimates were correct or reasonable.

                  casuistics over what "stable" and "done" mean instead of committing to an actual release date.

                  If you can't define what "stable" and "done" are, then how can you expect an actual release date?

                  --

                  --
                  xoa

        • As for the languages, just off the top of my head: digitalmars D, factor, ruby, python 3000, about a half dozen JVM-targetting langs, etc. They are not standing still. Neither should we.
          • (ruby came and *went*??)
            • Of course it didn't "go" - no language really "goes" in a strict sense; but think about them as waves of interest in different languages, that's what I was thinking about when I wrote the original post.

          • Walter Bright started D in 1999. The first public release of Ruby occurred in 1995. Guido announced Python 3000 in spring 2000, several months before the summer 2000 announcement of Perl 6 (unless you count Topaz, which doesn't count). Clojure may or may not count, being a Lisp dialect. Scala counts if you throw out Odersky's work on its predecessor in 1999.

            Factor (and by extension and influence, Joy) indeed count.

            The most popular of those languages is Ruby, however.

Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.