> Eric Raymond's book-in-development ``The Art of Unix Programming'' says
> this about the future of Perl:
>> Perl usage has grown respectably, but the language itself has been stagnant
>> for two years or more.
> Bah. Looks like my Perl5-Porters summaries have been completely in vain. :)
yeah,
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 05:03:12PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 11:28:45AM -0500, brian d foy wrote:
> > okay. i quit.
>
> Well, hm. I'd rather we actually made something positive out of this.
>
> There's obvious FUD out there and we don't seem to be giving the impressio
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 11:05:22PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 03:00:05PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > Again, We'll have continued discussion, but what the perl development
> > project needs right now is a swift kick of *direction* from larry. And
> 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.
Right, but does it hurt to give general guide-posts on how the language is to
operate? If everybody knows that it is going
> While I'm not in a position to rush Larry, we are starting in on the bits
> of the internals that we can do without much input from him. It's slow
> going (mainly because we've been waiting) but it has started.
well, I don't think that anyone should be in the position to 'rush' anyone else,
b
As much as I'd like to respond to some of these points, I'll refrain from it
now, I'll let my RFCs speak for themselves.
Speaking of which... apologies in advance for cross-posting this, but I wanted
to get the largest audience possible... I won't do it again. At least not in the
forseeable fut
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:47:58AM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Monday 19 February 2001 22:18, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > Speaking of which... apologies in advance for cross-posting this, but I
> wanted
> > to get the largest audience possible... I won't do it again.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:15:56PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> > Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there
> > be a new one (perl-pdd)?
>
> I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of the list. Dan?
How about two lists?
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 11:38:03PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 07:20 PM 2/19/2001 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> >RFC 362
> >---
> >
> >=head1 TITLE
> >
> >The RFC project should be ongoing and more adaptive.
>
> It's my understandin
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 06:17:18PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 04:01 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> >Dan Sugalski writes:
> > > I've been thinking since I sent my last mail on this that we might
> > actually
> > > want to leave the two (PDD & RFC) separate. Keep on with the RF
> > RFC 362
> > ---
> ...
> > The RFC process should not have had an artificial deadline; it should be an
> > adaptive process that should last the entire development cycle of perl6 and
> > perhaps after.
>
> Should is a very dangerous word.
its a very useful word too sometimes... ;-)
>
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:42:52AM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 07:20:33PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> >
> > As much as I'd like to respond to some of these points, I'll refrain from it
> > now, I'll let my RFCs speak for themselves
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 08:31:23PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:00:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > So I ask you - *why* make an artificial deadline? What's the point?
>
> Do you currently believe we're all sufficiently focused on gett
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 04:04:31PM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:00:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > As I stated in the original post, there is no reason *not* to keep the
> > process open.
>
> In an attempt to keep my previous message co
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 09:11:03PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:39:25PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > The current RFCs need work.
>
> Be assured that they're getting lots of top-quality work.
>
> > There are new RFCs that could be
> No. Please don't, and save me the trouble of having to reject them. I'd
> rather not do that.
Exactly my point. There is no recourse that is given to me, or a lot of other
people for that matter.
And like I said, my time is variable, and the time that I have to devote to
design/implementatio
> Well, there's always the implementation. Granted, it's the messy, nasty
> side of things, but it is the area we're presently working in. Knowledge of
> C is *not* required either--just because that's what the current pieces up
> for discussion are written or going to be written in doesn't mea
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 05:12:05PM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 01:41:22PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 04:04:31PM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > > 1) The RFC was a free-for-all brainstorming process. Intentionally.
> &
18 matches
Mail list logo
