Re^6: Perl 11

Why charcterize criticism as an "attack"? Naming and shaming subjects of criticism is a venerable intellectual tradition. An attack implies something quite violent, or unreasonable, but these are merely critiques. He's like the Yelp of p5p.

the toolchain is typically the gathering place for all the important people too incompetent to do core

That's an attack, backed up by... what exactly?

That's an attack? It sounds like truth to me. When I first read that statement it was like looking in a mirror, because I would definitely be gathering on the toolchain with my fellow incompetents wrt the core.

p5p refuses to take bug and security reports
That's nonsense. Easily refuted.

But that's not the only fork of Perl done for the same reasons:

"It is also an attempt to fix some of the more obvious bugs that affect many programs and which the perl 5 porters refuse to fix, foremost hash performance and data corruption during global destruction."

"Lastly, and most theoretically, it is a safeguard against perl 5 porters breaking perl 5 to the point where it is no longer usable - when or if that happens, stableperl can be use to achieve independence."

blog.schmorp.de/2015-06-06-a-stable-perl.html

I think it's more likely that volunteers don't want to take abuse from someone who refuses to communicate with anything other than abuse. There are only so many patches I'm likely to review if every comment is answered with "you're too stupid and incompetent to ask questions, just merge the patch or you're deliberately destroying something".

If that was indeed the case then we're on the same page. I just find it odd that "the bad guys" who left p5p to fork Perl are fixing bugs and innovating far beyond what p5p offers, if their critique is completely untrue. I curse p5p every time I have to fix something they broke, and Larry's own son had to roll his own too: github.com/quietfanatic/notebook/blob/master/lib/cgi.pm

Thank you for taking the time to fill in some of the blanks.

Comment on Re^6: Perl 11

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^7: Perl 11
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Oct 25, 2018 at 15:17 UTC

Why charcterize criticism as an "attack"? Naming and shaming subjects of criticism is a venerable intellectual tradition. An attack implies something quite violent, or unreasonable, but these are merely critiques.

Wrong.

if their critique is completely untrue

That's not what I wrote.

[reply]


good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW
	PerlMonks