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
>
