On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 03:07:40PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
>  pp 22-23 - You might want to update the screen captures related to Moose, 
> both its search.cpan page and dependency graph, since its moved a long way 
> from 2008; on the other hand, the existing captures are still quite 
> representative, which is the point, so maybe nothing to do here.

Already on my "if I have time" list.

>  pg 52 - Still have XXX for count of Perl 5.10.1 core, bundled tests.

Done. Perl 5.10.1 has 92,697 core tests +142,101 more for bundled libraries etc.

>  pg 56 - Newest Perl versions 5.10.1, 5.8.9 not in graph.

Updated to the latest, which also has more platforms.

>  I don't know if you're going for visual consistency between the Perl 5 and 
> Perl 6 sections, but in the former, the section dealing with each myth 
> ended with the title of that myth with "busted" superimposed.  Now even if 
> you're not going for the multi-screen transition, you should at least mark 
> the end of each section with "busted".

Another "if I have time". (The Perl 6 portion was a bit of a bolt-on 

>  pg 73 - I suggest having Rakudo first in the list and Pugs second

They're in a vagely cronological order, in line with the whirlpool
metaphor on the previous pages.

>  Generally speaking with your metrics, it is valuable to distinguish of a 
> project's code lines from its documentation lines (or blank lines).

I'll probably drop mention of code lines and focus on projects, using the
nice graph of "projects known to proto" that Moritz generated.

(Counting lines of perl 6 code, even non-doc-non-blank lines, isn't very
useful when talking to an audience who don't appreciate the expressive
power of the language.)

>  pg 80 - You already recognized the need to update the graph.  And of 
> course, when you do, you would be sure to mention that any significant dip 
> starting through 2008 was due to lots of sub-projects splitting off.  And 
> the Rakudo commits graph that shows up 5 slides later shows where some of 
> those went.

I've still not found an update to that graph, or even any details about
where it came from originally.

> Once again great work.  And its particularly good that you're backing up 
> what you say in general with data, so its easier to trust, verify, and 
> convince.  And graphs are easy to absorb / make an impact.

Thanks for all the feedback Darren.

> I hope you're going to post another draft between now and the talk, so 
> people can review it again post changes.

Possibly not before Dublin (on Saturday) but certainly before Moscow
(3 weeks away).


Reply via email to