test (preview works, create gives a "Tough beans"-permission denied)
Ah... so my answer is too long... ROFL. But updating works.
Your link lead me to a blank 'Sign Up to see the Wonderful Goodies' page.
The ROI link should work now. It
hasn't also disapeared from the original document. Sorry for
the glitch. And it's not about signing up for goodies, it's just that
not everything that is to be published on the page is published
immediately. You know - we're trying to master a Perl-based Wiki
there. We're new to it and it has this inherent Perl software ergonomy
charm. ;-) Even if you tried to sign up, it wouldn't happen
automatically. You would have to apply for Propaganda.pm
membership.
Yes. Does that make you automatically right?
Of course not. I was merely stating that there is a
controversy. But now - after your answer. Yes, I think I'm right. Your
view on the matter seems fairly restricted.
If Perl6 is so obviously dead in the water, why are you bothering to
attack it?
Ah. You see ghosts. I didn't say Perl6 was dead in the water, nor
was I attacking it. I said, I see potential and I also said,
that the hope "if we had Perl6 all marketing it would be a childs
play" was naive because... (see my post). So if there was something I
attacked, it was the naivety about the concept of technology adoption
in your post. If that represents the consensus among Perl6 developers
(don't know), then Perl6 has still potential, but will not
succeed.
Ah! Appeals to -- for all intents and purposes, random -- higher
authority, the last chance saloon of unreasoned zealotry. Do you quote
him because he is right, or is he right because you quote him?
I'm not entirely sure if RF is "higher authority" and I actually
feel being accused of zealotry as a compliment. Don't feel that way,
and if I appear to core Perl folks as such... wow. Thanks. Because we
both are civilized people, I think it is only fair if you call me an
unreasoned zealot while I call you a naive marketing
anti-talent. Maybe this allows us to speak on one level and return to
the facts again. Yes?
In all likelihood this is just another 'I've a great
idea and I've written a thesis and knocked up a web page to present
it; now all I need are some donkeys to do the work' to raise my
phfantastical vision to reality; but I'll keep an open mind for
now.
Oh. I didn't know these things happen that often in the Perl
community. And no, unfortunately I even haven't written a thesis
(about this). Yes, a "web page" has been
knocked up, but not for this
particular topic. But on on this web page we will most certainly talk
about "knocking up" "Perl propagating" web pages in Wordpress or using
mailman, the CPAN quality fiasco or whatever. Different story.
And it's not "I", it's the Propaganda.pm team. If anyone there has
objections to this "zealotry" - as you say - he/she (yes, we're a
mixed bunch you know)
is invited to object. The Perl5->Perl6 converter is nothing but a
small step (see 3.1.2.3) and
totally unimportant now (compared to other things). It's just by a
factor of one thousand more important than other things being done in
Perl6 right now, so I thought I could mention it. Let's see:
Sorry, but I think you are wrong. Indeed, I think
that perhaps the second worst thing that could happen to Perl6 is the
creation of such a tool. Why?
:-) Of course, the most important thing for me is the second worst
thing to you. Therefore anti-talent. You see? No? Aren't you aware how
technic-centric your arguments are? How limited that view is? You
really think it is the developer, the early adopter who is responsible
for the adoption of a new technology? Oh man... Hint: Have a look how
new programming languages like Go or Dart are being prepared for
adoption. And LEARN for gods sake! Because even in the technical
domain, your arguments are void. But OTOH I see some potential for
agreement here:
Because some large percentage of the Pure-perl
modules are dross unworthy of persisting. Large numbers of the
modules on CPAN are newbies first goes at writing modules; 90% boiler
plate; 10% wasted effort.
YES! I agree! We should
perhaps try to find a quantitative estimate to "large percentage", but
in general: You are right. CPAN quality is to some large percentage
... well, just what you said. I'm somewhat surprised about that harsh
judgement, because that's what I say, while I keep hearing ... "but we
have CPAN". Ok, so CPAN having cruft/bad modules is your 1st argument
against a converter. Ok. We remember that.
Your second argument is, that those modules that are not sh*t,
cannot be converted or the necessities in the Perl6 feature set for
their successful conversion would drag the clean and orthogonal (sic!)
design of Perl6 into the mud. In that argument you speak of something
between 100 to 500 relevant modules. I would kill, to get this
list. So better prevent death toll and provide that list. Phalanx
anyone?
Your third argument is, that - even if such a conversion took
(successfully) place - the result would be bad. And even improving it
wouldn't show/let play the "whole Perl6 glory", because these would be
only patches without some global concept.
Your fourth argument is tackling the CPAN problem with namespace
squatting and then - 5th - you basically state that
generated/converted code is crap.
Starting with your 5th argument: Hurry,
Cambridge UK has next
2 days a nice conference about code generation. Maybe there's
something to learn. As every (byte)compiler generates code, by your
definition, ALL code on this planet is crap. Certain metrics applied,
you are right. Can you imagine that in the 90ies, a very competent
m68k Assembly/C guru told me about his observation, how the GCC
already at that time, made surprisingly efficient machine code (using
surprising register overflows) an assembly programmer probably
wouldn't have thought of?
Are you aware of the situation, where CPython was much faster than
PyPy and today, thanks to the JIT compiler in PyPy it can run
simple physics
simulations by a factor of 20 to 25 faster? Oh! You didn't mean
"machine/byte code" when you talked about code generation? Ok, then
please state so next time. Never mind. You are wrong on any account
regarding code generation. Yes, the terror of the programmer. Machines
being able to generate better code than the programmers. Out of what?
Out of more abstract concepts than just source code. Or out of other
source code. Yes, that is called a converter. If I were you, I
wouldn't reference the 90ies that often, because at some occasion one
could get the impression that's where you got stuck.
As the 4th argument, namespace litter. YES! That is a problem. With
CPAN. YES! Do not let us do this with a CPAN6 too! YES! Shove all
converted code to P5P6 namespace - or whatever. Where it can live with
it's stigma of 2nd class code. Until there is something better in the
shiny orthogonal 1st class CPAN6 world. But at least THERE WILL be
something to bootstrap with. Same as C++11 was not the first thing
that hit us.
Your 3rd argument basically states, that refactoring with Perl6 is
impossible. Maybe it's even impossible with Perl5. Hey - maybe we
should even scrap evolution. You know - that funny thing Charles
Darwin babbled about. I mean evolution as optimization effort can only
find a local maximum, not the global one. Clearly not the Perl6
way. We want the global maximum. From the start. Creationists unite
(and bring us Perl6)! If there was something to attack on Perl6 it
would be this (naive) "make it right from the start"
approach/mindset.
Your 2nd argument states such a converter cannot exist. Or - if it
would exist - Perl6 would get polluted. Uh! Where I see
real-world-benchmarking (features, not speed), you see pollution. So
stay in your hygiene chamber. Do not let the bad real-world in. Sweet
dreams - no? And basically by that argument you state, that Perl6 is
not as powerful as Perl5 is. You just do not want to admit that, so
you cover this up in "Perl6 would get polluted if it had to emulate
all the Perl5 glitches". Yeah - right.
So what remains, is agreement on argument 1. CPAN is a
pile of cruft. I still do not
see how this invalidates a P5toP6 converter. Also a partial agreement
on argument 4, where I think is a very easy and evident solution. What
I DO see, is how you - again - evaded my argument of
entanglement between Perl5 and Perl6. It seems we're thinking in
completely different categories. Unfortunately, you cannot get a
garage into a car. I understand all your arguments perfectly. And they
show a very narrow, limited view of the IT-world. Therefore it is me
who is in duty and responsible for extending that view.
If you ever unlock that door to your vision, we might find out.
First, please try to speak for yourself, or identify the group you
refer to with "we". Even then, these things are not about democracy or
majorities. If you find a group of 100 "we"'s who say "No, we ain't
doin' no stinkin' converter" and if I find a group of 5 dedicated
people who "yep - we do it" and then do it - the smaller group
decides. Anyway, let's stick to this topic. If we manage to clarify
some things here, we may move to the even bigger picture at some later
time.
Let's think about the hypothetical (project) manager A in company
X. Let's even assume, Propaganda.pm has helped to rectify the shitty
image of Perl - against all odds and "we"'s - to the extent, A is part
of a growing group of managers worldwide who at least are considering
the use of Perl for some next project. Let's shift a little bit into
the future and assume we have that situation now. Question: would the
existence of a Perl5->Perl6 converter help, hurt or just not matter
for the decision to make that project in Perl5? It would not hurt,
except in the case, where the decision would be more radical i.e. to
deploy Perl6 directly because one could eventually augment with
converted Perl5 "legacy". So either Perl5 or Perl6 would benefit -
depending on the mind boggling decision process of said
manager. q.e.d.
Let's not think aout the developer. Because most of the time it is
NOT the developer who decides which technology to adopt. Most of the
time this decision is made based on what some developers say, what
some managers think (black magic there) and if the decision is made,
developers are told what to use or simply new developers are acquired
to do so. If your experience is different, congrats or
condolence. Pick one.
Again - a Perl5toPerl6 converter is not the most important thing
for Perl right now. It is, however, right now the most important thing
for Perl6, but if you disagree, I can live with that. I'm sure you can
equally well live with the knowledge that there is at least one guy
shaking head over the Perl6 "concepts" you've presented so far.
The most important thing right now, is to improve the Perl
image. OUT THERE. Not here in the "echo chamber". So that's what I
will try to contribute to. Having well-respected people within the
Perl community standing totally in the way comes only as a surprise,
explains perfectly the current situation Perl is in, but will in the
long run have no effect. Fortunately.