On 01/05/11 19:48, Daniel Carrera wrote:
From what Larry has already said, I dont think he ever will say the
Perl 6 spec is ready. The spec and the language are evolving together.
That is what the waterfall and attractor stuff was all about.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Richard Hainsworth<rich...@rusrating.ru> wrote:
It is blindingly obvious that the majority of language users, ..., will only
start to use a language
when it is recommended by 'those in authority'...
I think the issue of a version number is irrelevant
1) You have more or less contradicted yourself. If we agree that Larry
Wall is an authority, for example, it is reasonable to wait until he
says that the Perl 6 spec is ready, and many will also wait until
Rakudo claims to mostly comply with the Perl 6 spec.
When I said 'in authority', I meant those opinion-makers (from bloggers
to journalists to heads of major software developers) who start saying
'xxx is a really cool language'.
And here it seems to me that you begin to prove the point I am trying to
make: version numbers are irrelevant as carriers of information about
usefulness, stability, or even maturity of product.
2) Version number may not be relevant to you, but it is relevant to
others. Therefore, it is relevant to the adoption of Perl 6.
How can 0.99-19 mean anything? Does it mean under 1.0? If so, does this
meant that the developers of JED consider it to be unusable or 'not for
production purposes'? My entire point is that the version number, in of
itself, has no more meaning than what the developers want it to mean.
But acceptance is not determined by the developers.
, given the vested
interest of the developer to assign a number that will attract users,
That has not been my experience with FOSS projects. Rather, I think
developers shy away from ever saying 1.0. For example, the JED editor
has been around for a long time, but its version number is 0.99-19.
Though I have been using Linux exclusively for about 5 years now, the
"Windows world" remains an order of magnitude larger. So again, if the
point is true in the Windows world, it seems I would win the argument.
The Enlightenment window manager too 10 years before they were
comfortable saying "1.0". This "fear of 1.0" was even the subject of a
paragraph in Eric Raymond's The Cathedral and The Bazaar.
to such an extent that there is rule of thumb never to use the first release,
but to wait until the version 'has matured'.
I've heard this in the Windows world,
Wasnt that due to organisational and ownership changes relating to the
development of Netscape?
but I think the FOSS world
version numbers tend to be lower. For example, I remember that
Netscape 5.0 was equivalent to Mozilla 1.0.
Even if the developers of "Rakudo" release a V1.0, would that in itself lead
to the acceptance of Perl6. I doubt it.
Necessary but not sufficient condition?
Not even necessary. Why not v0.99-xxxx?
You are again confirming a point I have tried to make. Most people do
not themselves try out new languages or indeed anything new until they
have read a recommendation from someone they trust. If I want a new
camera, I search the internet for reviews - I cant test each one. But
once I do settle on a choice, I then want the proof. Just because a
reviewer says its good, how do I know he / she isnt paid by the company?
A great deal that is needed to demonstrate the stability and strength of
Perl6 for 'production' purposes has been included in the design from the
very beginning, namely, a MASSIVE test suite.
How many people, not involved in Perl 6, know that? See the point? I
bet that you don't follow the development process of every single
software package you use. For any given software package, 99.99% of
users do not follow the developers list of look through the test
The proof that software is stable and robust comes from testing. And
testing has been the foundation of the development of Perl6. When -
eventually - critics compare Perl6 to some other language and discuss
the robustness of the compiler, they will look at the size of the test