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
about I/O disciplines and I should retire to the Tassili-in-Aijer
mountains in Sahara as a camel herder :-)
-- Jarkko Hietaniemi
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Not an entirely fair criticism (Score:1)
Gabor wrote: "[b]usinesses often do not, or cannot, invest the time and effort to track a continually-moving target like Parrot."
I don't think this is a fair criticism. I wouldn't expect any profit-constrained business to track any alpha software -- which Parrot clearly is at this point. Parrot's current version is 0.4.15 and the developers have a clear idea of what constitutes, say, 0.5.0 and 1.0. Once we get to 1.0, then it becomes plausible to ask the developers to distinguish between 'stable' versions -- which businesses would presumably track -- and 'development' versions.
Reply to This
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, but isn’t that the point? Parrot’s still alpha – fair enough –, but it’s been in the works for six years already. When is it going to get to 1.0?
I’m not sure it’s a good argument – much depends on how much work has really been invested in those six years, and how quickly the project will settle once the groundwork has been laid down. But it’s a valid question.
Btw, it wasn’t Gabor who wrote that article, he merely linked it.
Re: (Score:1)
When there are enough patches to add sufficient features and test and documentation and remove sufficient bugs to get to 1.0.
The Cost is fixed, so the only two knobs to adjust are Time and Scope.