On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, John Tobey wrote:
> The people here are rightly skeptical about the effectiveness of using
> the 5.6 code base as a starting point for v6, but I have a pretty
> clear vision of how to do it, and I am committed to giving it a try,
> even if no one else will. In fact, I'll give you all a tentative
> schedule:
Wait, you're going to develop Perl 6 ALONE? Wasn't this going to be "the
community's rewrite of Perl"? Shouldn't you be trying to rally support
for your vision before issuing schedules?
I'm not trying to knock you - I'm not at all against hearing you plans and
possibly helping out. This just seems like a pretty strange way to
approach a community effort.
> 15 August 2000 - detailed draft spec to perl6-internals.
> 31 August 2000 - revised spec after discussion.
What? You're expecting all the various perl6-* lists to come up with
final RFCs be the end of the month? And you're expecting to have Larry's
final plans by then?
Or are you going to implement Perl 6 without knowing what it is?
> Unicode and threading would become integrable only after a lot of
> morphing (refactoring). The morphing would probably destroy any
> traces of v5 unicode support (since well under 20% of test scripts
> will notice), and of course 5005threads will be the first to go. With
> any luck, a compatible, well-integrated replacement will eventually
> take its place.
This sounds hopeful, but mostly unfounded. Without starting with
threading and Unicode as primary features you're going to be fighting an
uphill battle ala Perl 5.
-sam
