|
Re^5: The current state of Perl 6
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Apr 20, 2010 at 03:39 UTC
|
I don't know. I don't care. I know what I need from Perl 6 to use it. I don't really care if it's ready or not for anyone else to use it, in the abstract.
If you need specific features or characteristics, you're welcome to file specific bug reports or make specific feature requests. As with any free software project developed by a community, they may or may not be accepted but you get the source code either way, and you're free to do with it almost anything you wish.
In the absence of specific questions and details, this degenerates into a debate over the semantics of abstract words like "done" and "exists" and "vaporware" and "delivery" and "dead" and "useful" and "usable", which is a lot of fun for epistemologists but is almost always an unproductive rathole for developers.
Edited to add: I get the impression that some people think that the intent is for Perl 6 to replace Perl 5 wholesale. I only speak for myself, but that's not my intent. I have plenty of code it doesn't make sense to migrate to Perl 6 right now, and it might never make sense to migrate that code. With that said, I think that Perl 6 is a better language as a whole, but Perl 5 has the better surrounding ecosystem right now. Yet being able to use Perl 5 modules through Blizkost is a tremendous advantage for Rakudo, and it changes my risk/reward calculation for using Perl 6 substantially.
| [reply] |
|
|
I get your point and generally in most of your posts you try to say that 'done' is basically that needs to applied to unsupported software. But that is not what the debate is about. The debate is about a specification and a implementation that matches the specification, Neither of which is complete. What I mean to say is add as much as water you wish to add to a pool but when you want to walk on it, just freeze it. In the next cycle add some more water..freeze.. and the cycle goes on.
| [reply] |
|
|
The debate is about a specification and a implementation that matches the specification....
Royce's 1970 paper itself debunked that idea, no matter how many people have misread (or, more likely, misNOTread) it over the past 40 years. I suppose it's grown into its own cottage industry, much like misquoting Fred Brooks out of context.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it's interesting that you don't care. let me tell you something that you already know: there are two three books out there on Perl6 right now this one, this one and this one (ironically the language isn't yet usable in any serious application BUT WE HAVE FRIGGIN BOOKS DESCRIBING HOW TO USE IT!!! how do you explain that ?!?).
before you publish another book that noone is going to read just because you want to publish books and attract attention, stop and think "am I going to waste paper (that could very well serve other purposes) again ?"
| [reply] |
|
|
There are also books describing how to survive a zombie attack. Probably more people have bought them than there are people who have bought Perl6 books. That doesn't mean zombie attacks are closer to happening than Perl6.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
