On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 05:03:12PM +0000, Simon Cozens wrote: > There's obvious FUD out there and we don't seem to be giving the impression of > getting much done, or doing anything to counter it. Let's be fair. We're not getting much done, and that's a *GOOD* thing. Language design is a very tough nut to crack, and we decided (as a group) that we don't want a language designed by committee, we want a languaged designed by Larry. The best we can do (frustrating as it may be) is to let him think deeply. Remember, one of the basic tenets of Perl6 is that Perl5 isn't going away, nor is it fundementally broken. > Part of the problem is > that we don't currently have anything that we can point to and call progress. > That's a problem in itself, because if people don't see progress they lose > interest and go away. Perhaps. If they go away to hack Perl5, is that a problem? If they go away to hack Python or Ruby, were they really _that_ interested in Perl6 in the first place? And is it really a problem if the lack of interest magically disappears when Larry returns? Rushing the process because of intermittent PR problems isn't going to make Perl6 any better at achieving it's goal - solving tomorrow's problems better than Perl5. Z.
- Re: "Art Of Unix Programming&quo... Simon Cozens
- Re: "Art Of Unix Programmin... Simon Cozens
- Re: "Art Of Unix Programmin... Edward Peschko
- Re: "Art Of Unix Programmin... Adam Turoff
- Re: "Art Of Unix Programmin... Nathan Torkington
- "Art of Unix Programming" on perl Edward Peschko