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
help them think they understand.
--Larry Wall
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Why not just use alpha, beta, etc (Score:1)
I really don't get this argument. It's like, you want a release which you want to advertise to people as ready for consumption, but you don't want to "use up" the 1.0 number delivering something which isn't "finished". Forget the overpromising, it's years too late for that.
Honestly, no-one will care if the complete Perl 6 is not there, so long as the implementation is good, it's debuggable, you can start making bindings for C libraries easily, and there is an effective module deployment system it should
Re: (Score:1)
No one cares about “alpha” versions. Look at how much testing even the Perl 5 Release Candidates get: it’s barely distinguishable from none.
Which is no surprise, and is even less so for alphas. The typical meaning of “alpha” is “we’ve picked a feature set but the features aren’t done yet and we’ve not even started on the bugs” – miles away from production stability.
That’s not what Rakudo* is about. Quite the opposite: the idea is t
Re:Why not just use alpha, beta, etc (Score:1)
And what the heck number are the distribution packagers going to give it?
It's matching the "Whatever" to the wrong side of the argument. "Rakudo *" to me means the version that a particular person starts using it, not a fixed release.
Why not just call it 1.0, make it clear to everyone what's finished and what's not, then there is no over-promising.
Reply to This
Parent