On 05/23/2017 11:30 AM, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
On 23 May 2017, at 20:21, ToddAndMargo <toddandma...@zoho.com> wrote:
On 05/23/2017 10:47 AM, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
On 23 May 2017, at 19:23, ToddAndMargo <toddandma...@zoho.com> wrote:
On 05/23/2017 06:30 AM, Will Coleda wrote:
Removed? It's still available athttps://github.com/tadzik/panda …
It is on its way out. The developers over on the chat
line directed me to zef when I asked for help getting
panda working.
Panda stinks.
That's not really true or called for.
Panda is broken and not going to be repaired. The
developers on the chat line recommend zef instead.
Was polite enough?
Perhaps you should check out the section “The End of an Era” in last weeks Perl
6 Weekly: https://p6weekly.wordpress.com/2017/05/16/2017-20-crossing-the-alps/
You should realize that open source software is not made by robots but by
people. People for which keeping up with changes can take more resources than
they have at hand.
Also remember that without panda, I don’t think we would have had an ecosystem
out now as fleshed out as it is now.
So saying that certain software stinks, feels more like projection than
anything else. So yes, *I* think it was uncalled for.
Liz
Would substituting "broken" for "stinks" be polite enough?
IMO yes, because that would be factual.
Liz
Hi Liz,
I was using the meaning of "low or bad quality". I did
not mean the other meaning of a "foul odor". I was
trying to get to the point rapidly and to be of help.
I really wasn't meaning to denigrate anyone's work.
And, of course, Panda is not going to work right if
it is not being maintained, especially with the dizzying
(a good thing) pace of development on Perl 6.
And, Panda does not smell bad. Maybe. Okay, okay,
okay, it doesn't!
:-)
-T
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Computers are like air conditioners.
They malfunction when you open windows
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
