On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 22:23, Rod Adams wrote: > (If there are others working in the shadows back there, please make > yourselves heard.)
Allison Randal, Dan Sugalski, Hugo van der Sanden, and I usually help out. > Can apocalypses be something more along the line of scratches on the wall, > that then go through some level of deciphering or translation into > something closer to English? Are there topics that need brainstorming that > this list could take over? Probably not as such. The Perl 6 RFC process demonstrated fairly convincingly that there still needs to be one coherent design that takes into account all of the various desires and uses. Larry is shockingly good at that synthesis. (Just ask Piers Cawley; he'll wax eloquent on the subject.) On the other hand, after every Apocalypse and Exegesis, the discussion here exposes certain confusing spots and improvements to the vision. It has to be synthesized first though. Or syncretized. > I certainly don't want the language to loose the internal cohesiveness that > all languages need, and am suitably scared of "design by committee"... but > I'd like to think that there's something that could be done to help matters. I'd really like to see people start turning the existing design documents into story cards and programmer tests for Perl 6. That'll make it much easier to implement the thing. Design decisions have to be broken into individual tasks at some point. Sure, some of them will change as we go along. There's enough there that can be implemented now, though, without waiting for the big thud of specifications. There's plenty of useful work to go around. Running test cases are *much* easier to implement against than anything else. (Hey, it's been working fairly well on the Perl XP Training Wiki: http://xptrain.perl-cw.com/). -- c
