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.
  • You seem to be pissed off because I rejected a badly-written patch of yours about a pointless new keyword, and now you're going at war. What's your point in spreading all this FUD really ? Bring Perl 5 to an end ? Make me quit P5P ?

    And seriously are you really believing all this nonsense you're writing about releasing ?

    • Thank you for finally responding directly to me.

      You seem to be pissed off...

      I'm not angry. I'm sad.

      ... because I rejected a badly-written patch of yours about a pointless new keyword....

      Even after all of the complaints about people who talk more than they code, I don't expect standing ovations for producing code, but I would appreciate at least an acknowledgement that I did something about it.

      This is the first time (to my knowledge) you've made any comment about the implementation of the patch. If you'd like to discuss the utility of a backwards-compatible non-default syntax change which changes procedural code into declarative code, clarifies the intent of code, collapses at least three lines of boilerplate into one, improves the obvious namespacing of functions, and is forward compatible with further OO systems such as Mouse and Moose, let's put on our language designer hats and discuss it on p5p.

      Don't all serious patches (with tests) deserve such consideration?

      What's your point in spreading all this FUD really ?

      If I've spread FUD, I'm open to correction.

      Are the defaults of Perl 5 really correct for new code? Do I not start all of my new Perl 5 programs with several lines of boilerplate? Do I not have to teach novice Perl 5 programmers how to convince Perl to help, rather than hinder, them? Does Perl 5.10.1 have a release date? Is there a plan for 5.12? Is there a plan for 5.10.2?

      Do you really think the Perl 5 development process as it is works, in the face of (for example) a known performance regression identified and fixed seventeen months ago in bleadperl yet still unavailable to everyone who wants a stable release? Would you say, even in jest (as I believe another pumpking did), that people deserve to suffer this performance regression because they didn't test for and discover it until after the release of Perl 5.10?

      Do you believe that it's acceptable from a language design perspective that Perl 5 doesn't have subroutine signatures? That the default way to inherit from an existing class is to modify a package global variable? That by default, Perl itself refuses to warn you if you use symbolic references or call undefined symbols or make a typo in a variable name even though in almost every case these are errors of implementation?

      And seriously are you really believing all this nonsense you're writing about releasing ?

      Every word -- especially the words about how the average Perl 5 user cannot or will not use unreleased code. "Patch it yourself, if it's really a problem" is an unacceptable diktat.

      Feel free to tell me to shut up and write more code, if you like -- but if you do so, I would very much appreciate knowing exactly how much code I have to write to express my opinion that the Perl 5 development process has problems. (I'd also love to know how much code I have to write beyond that point to have my ideas taken seriously, rather than called "FUD" and "warmongering" and "astrology".)

      • Lies and plain lies. I already commented on your patch on P5P. Several [mpe.mpg.de] times [mpe.mpg.de]. But you probably choose to ignore any opinion that's not in line with your ideology?

        There is a plan for 5.12, see for example here [mpe.mpg.de] which is a recent statement of intention. Concerning fixing release dates, I consider that pointless [blogspot.com] and I don't understand why you think release dates matter.

        Also, I don't like at all the way you systemically mischaracterise 5.10 by spreading FUD -- yes, I'm using the word again -- about how it would

        • gnore any opinion that's not in line with your ideology?

          There is a plan for 5.12, see for example here [mpe.mpg.de] which is a recent statement of intention.

          A "statement of intention" is not a "release plan".

          Concerning fixing release dates, I consider that pointless [blogspot.com] and I don't understand why you think release dates matter.

          Can you honestly say that the overly long release date have helped Perl? I think not but I would like to hear why you think it hasn't.

          Sorry, but I can't take you seriously anymore

          That is really sad. You are now dismissing him so that anything he says, whether good or bad, you don't have to worry about. I am glad we as Perlers are easily dismissive. That sure helps the dialog.

        • But you probably choose to ignore any opinion that's not in line with your ideology?

          I chose the word implementation deliberately, Rafael. I'm a careful writer. You're a careful reader.

          I don't like at all the way you systemically mischaracterise 5.10 by spreading FUD...

          The quote in the linked message was an analogy. To my recollection, I have never suggested that all new features in Perl 5 require use feature, only that some new features do. As I have written many times, my concern is that this is th

        • Raphael, I've been a long-time reader of both your blogs and chromatic's. You seem to basically characterize anyone who agrees with chromatic as 'less experienced'. That's a bit insulting. You can count me as one of your former readers now. And that makes me more sad than angry.
          • Being less experienced in technical and open source project management issues than Rafael is a very broad statement and certainly not an insult. I consider myself part of that group yet I've been around longer than most.

            • It's one thing to present it like it's a fact (I'm in the same group as you, actually more so). However, it's quite another to use it as a defense of one's tenuous arguments, and as a way of disregarding the opposing view. To me, painting everyone who agrees with chromatic as such falls into the latter, and indicates the person making the argument is unwilling to listen and unreasonable to deal with.