[EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*>I agree, but it doesn't seem to playing out that way, based on two client
*>examples. The reason I raise this issue here is that we may need to be more
*>focused on how the Perl 6 statements are presented.
Focused on...what? There is no Perl6 and considering 2 years is an
eternity in web time why is anyone even thinking about this particular
vapourware product just yet? Perhaps you can couch your responses in such
a way as to communicate the span of time involved and that as the language
is coming along, it will be more lucid in what Perl6 entail for the
developer.
*>Ordinarily, no one likes to use any version of any software that is a *.0.
*>Balancing statements like "great new functionality" with "stability" and
*>"backward compatibility" are a must to avoid eroding the support we already
*>have for Perl.
Well..considering that it's 2 years probably before something is produced
worthy of production, add another year to that for the burn-in phase, that
gives them 3 whole years to think about Perl6 and a migration path.
I'll care about Perl6 when there is something to care about but it seems
an absurd waste of time to fret over something that doesn't exist and
won't for a while. Until then Perl5 still needs to be patched, updated and
generally loved. Why aren't they pitching a fit that 5.6.1 hasn't been
released yet if they are in desperate need of new features and fixes?
The buzzword compliant feel of the whole mission to build Perl6
makes me wonder if the fun is gone for good only to be replaced by a
hubris of another colour.
e.
