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.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Is it just me, or does this sound like a professional swindle?

    "We're almost done with a project that needs just a small cash infusion and mankind everywhere will reap the benefits. We have little (or nothing) to show for 5 years of work but if you trust us -- and send us cash -- we'll come up with something quickly. Please make your checks payable in Nigerian funds..."

    Autrijus seems to have cobbled together much of Perl 6 in a couple of weeks. Shouldn't we rather send money to an inspired hacker like t
    • Autrijus seems to have cobbled together much of Perl 6 in a couple of weeks

      From nothing? No. From these [perl.org] and these [perl.org] which is part of what has been produced over the past few years. So your We have little (or nothing) to show for 5 years of work is untrue.

      There's no indication of how much they're trying to raise

      I see 12 amounts of $35000. That's a pretty good indication, surely?

      What if they don't hit their target of $35k for each module?

      They're milestones. You can't start the later ones until you finish

      • In spite of the harsh words, Mr. No Free Lunch might not be so 'confused' if anyone from behind the magic curtain ever communicated in a clear, concise way what is going on. There hasn't been an Apoc in over a year so, even for those keeping score, it does give you pause as to why there is suddenly all this excitement, especially after seeing what a bright guy can do in 2 weeks.

        Last time there was a push for funds it was two years back then, too. When there is nothing but the 'with us or against us' kind

        • And 12 x 35k is $1.23 MILLION DOLLARS.

          I believe that there is an error in your maths.

          perl -le 'print 12*35000'
          420000
          • That's what I get for making purl do the math. Even so, the questions remain. Is it worth $420,000?
            • "Second-system syndrome done right", Larry says. To me that's the better justification one can propose. The goal is not to develop (incrementally, as always) a cool new language, but to come up with a fully working, fast and mature implementation, built on the experience of the previous Perls, and able to handle migration from Perl 5 legacy.

              (Maybe outsourcing to some Asian country could help to cut costs:)

              • Is it really? C2.com paraphrases Brooks in "The general tendency is to over-design the second system, using all the ideas and frills that were cautiously sidetracked on the first one." and to me that sums up Perl 6 in a nutshell.
                • perl5 was the second system. Ands it sucks. The price for references and objects was a complete loss of integrity, be it semantic or syntactical.

                  I loved Perl4. I understand why Perl5 is what it is but I can't hardly recommand it to the newcomer when Python and Ruby don't carry all the historical baggage that Perl5 has.

                  Perl5 was a total rewrite, but it was bound by the decisions made for the first one that was intended only as a better awk.

                  That's why Larry takes so much time with Perl6. He wants a language that will grow and will keep some integrity over time. Such an undertaking is not the making of an industrial product of a completely known type. So it is illusory to expect steady progress and known milestones. Most of the industry is merely innovating. I hate that word. It means putting a new polish on known concepts and get the customer to pay again for the same thing. Know product cycles guaranties steady income for the investors. But, to use their very terms, does that really create value over the long term?

                  In computer languages, it is even worse. Your skills dom't translate automatically in the innovative language. A new language need to be learnt. Usually to get marginal improvement on your productivity and none on your creavity.

                  Larry is not a innovator but a creator. Innovators and creators don't live by the same standards, What they create don't obey the metrics we are used to judge previous creations and innovations. it breaks these very metrics. Creation is subversive. Because it does not obey existing metrics, creation looks like entropy. And, in a sense, entropy is part of the process. Perl5 was the entropic process that lead to the emergence of Perl6. we need creators. Innovators just build on the work of creators.

                  Our mistake was to believe that Larry would come with something in months. Don't blame him for the wrong expectation we have imposed on him. I had doubt but when I have read the Apocalypse about rules. I understood that Perl6 would be more than a clean implementation of Perl5. I loved Perl5 because of regexps. And I realized that Perl5 regexps was a mere clumsy historical artefact tacked on the side of Perl with features added in a haphazard way. We even lost people on that, like Tom Christiansen, who could not admit Perl5 was going this way. I was entranced to figure how well thought Perl6 would be. I can wait for Perl6.

                  I am eager to understand it. I am learning type theory because I don't know how a language can be both with static and dynamic bindings. How type conversion can coexist with type inference? Probably not, There will be different modes. Larry is still silent on that. That probably means he has not made his mind of it. And probably some important features will come over time, not with the first release of Perl6. But it must be designed for it.

                  And now, we come to examples of a perception problem with Perl. Sadly Perl6 will have more problem on that. But that's a problem with our industrial culture, not of Perl who bring us back to our real human nature. Our industrial world is about specialization of process and people. But Perl is a language and not an mere industrial artifact or process. People think that they can pigeon hole Perl. For example: "Perl does CGI. So it cannot be used to program in the large". And, by what I read in perlmonks and elsewhere, we are pigeon holing Perl6 by judging it with the metrics of Perl5.

                  Trust Larry. Read the synopsis, the apocalypses, the exegeses. Play with Parrot and Pugs. If you feel too small to contribute code. Just going along the learning effort, you will help building the Perl conmunauty.

                  Perl6. Better be right than right now.

                  • Whether or not to even attempt Perl 6 wasn't my original point -- simply the shady financing of TPF, and throwing money down the Perl 6 Hole -- but you've touched something.

                    Better be right than right now.

                    There is a tipping point for all things, when the need to produce something with all of the features you want is surpassed by the need of actually producing a usable product.

                    For example, the Pony Express is romanticised and fondly thought of, but failure. Not because it wasn't financially sound or wa