Absolutely and double the vulgarity. I can't imagine that the article was
posted at all. Several of us (you guys) have _some_ pull at O'Reilly...
please suggest that the article be pulled. For the company that backs perl
the most to publish something so disgustingly myopic is unconscionable.

Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 > Simon Cozens writes:
 > > >         http://www.perl.com/pub/2000/11/perl6rfc.html
 > >
 > > Agree 100% to every point.
 > I don't.  A constructive critique of the Perl 6 RFC process might be
 > useful.  This onslaught of negativity is not.
 > The Perl 6 RFC process got people talking about the future, and we
 > have a staggeringly large number of suggestions for improvements to
 > the language.  Most of them solve real problems, some of them cause
 > more problems than they solve.  Some of the solutions are bogus, some
 > are brilliant.
 > So?
 > If you want every proposal to be either perfect or knowledgably
 > killed, you really do need to go through an IETF-like process with
 > strong editors and a lot of time.  We don't have strong editors and we
 > didn't have the time.
 > Right now, Larry has an idea of the kinds of things people will want
 > to do with perl6 that are hard to do with perl5.  I think it's pretty
 > unrealistic to have come up with much more than that.
 > And Mark's article is hardly an accurate picture.  Yes, many of the
 > implementation sections were deficient.  Is this the earth-shattering
 > catastrophe it's made out to be?  No.  Guess what--many were just
 > fine.  And by focussing on the people who fought opposition to their
 > proposal, Mark completely ignored all the people who *did* modify
 > their RFCs based on the opposition of others.
 > But what really pisses me off is that the harshest critics are people
 > who bowed out or were silent during the stage where we were setting up
 > the RFC process.  I'm sorry.  We all did our best, and if you want to
 > suggest ways that we could do better next time, then please do so.
 > But squatting and taking a big steamy dump over all that we
 > did--that's just wrong.
 > Not only is it wrong, it's also hurting our chances.  When an article
 > in perl.com is so overwhelmingly negative about the work so far, do
 > you think that stirs confidence in what we're doing?  Do you think
 > that people will read the article and think "yeah, I want to write
 > code for *that* project".  Will they think "I'm looking forward to
 > perl6!"  No, of course they won't.  They'll think "it's a typical Perl
 > fuckup".
 > And that's what frustrates me.  In reality, it's highly premature for
 > people to be saying we're doomed, but the article doesn't give that
 > impression at all.
 > What would I have wanted to see in the article's place?  One of two
 > things.  Perhaps something showing why language design is hard, of
 > which there was a little in the article.  But it was lost in the "but
 > they were all idiots or assholes" message.  Or perhaps something
 > suggesting how to do things better next time, of which there was very
 > little.  I'd have loved to have seen either of those two articles.
 > So, I'm disappointed and a little frustrated.  But life goes on.
 > Nat

Reply via email to