On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 09:31, Aaron Sherman wrote: > And in it Apocalypse #26 was mentioned. Above, Larry mentions #11. At > first the rate of 1 apolcalypse per month seemed to support the idea > that Perl 6 would be defined within the next couple of years. However, > trending shows that this function was actually logarithmic, and spacing > has increased from month to quarter to half-year to year....
No plan survives first contact with the enemy. With Apocalypse 12 (soon!), much of the plan is finished. There are still rough edges to smooth down with regard to modules and packages, or at least how they differ from objects, but there's more than enough for implementation. > 1. Larry gets help in writing these (various degrees of delegation). Already in place. See the end of Apocalypse 6 for the very short Apocalypse 7. > 2. Perl 6 now (apoc 1-6), Perl 7 when the apocs are done. No. > 3. Perl 5.aleph-1: Perl 5 code-base, Perl 6ish feature-set. Perl 5.10. > 4. Don't worry, be happy (aka back in your hole, Hobbit! ;-) Yeah, that'd be my recommendation. > I hope that everyone understands that I'm saying this because I want to > help. I backed off of Perl 6 a while back, but as Perl 5 begins to feel > more and more like a holding pattern for Perl 6, I find myself needing > the next step to be taken for work reasons and wanting it for personal > reasons. There's a compiler in progress in Parrot's languages/perl6 directory, as well as Parrot itself, documentation to write, test suites to write, synopses to read and to correct.... Honestly -- and I don't aim this at anyone in specific -- I really wonder where the idea comes from that people must wait until Larry makes his final pronouncement to all of mankind before doing anything. If everyone believed that, we wouldn't have much of Parrot or Perl 6 or Ponie right now. Of course, if fewer people believed that, we'd have more of each right now. I'd consider that a good thing. -- c
