John Porter writes:
> > I'm not picking on John, but I think this list would be a whole lot
> > more productive and interesting if the conversation was focussed on
> > things that *we* are trying to do, not random people.  
> 
> I hear what you're saying, Nat.
> But I'm not sure I understand it.  "random people"?

If you've had a specific problem with Perl's speed, memory use, or
whatever, in a particular AI application, then that would seem to be a
problem.  But "some people run big AI jobs" or "other people will want
better memory use" just seems like pointlessly abstract argument.
Code is much more interesting than hypotheticals.

Nat

Reply via email to