Not that it matters, because Perl 6 should have been released over a year ago ;), but you forgot my entry.

In case I can retry: 2005-12-31, because I want to surprise you and this is the easiest chance I will get.

P.S. Next time, can you please close those tr and td tags? :)

...because Perl 6 should have been released...

Let me put on my cranky implementor hat here. The only people who can legitimately say that perl 6 should be doing anything, or be released at any time, are the ones who've actively done work on it. (So I can say should. And will)

If you've not done anything or, worse, been actively involved on perl6-language (a festering swamp that holds, no joke, a high place in the list of things that have delayed perl 6 (second only to the various lord of the rings DVDs)), you're just watching. People watching don't get shoulds. "Would be nice", "looks like opportunity X", "pity I've gotta move on to something else", sure. But not should. Should is for the people doing things, not the people watching.

Also note, as I'm being cranky, that if you have contributed to the development in non-development ways (that is, contributed money to the perl foundation for perl 6 development, done sysadmin or other infrastructure support for perl 6) you've definitely got good reason to ask "What the hell's going on?" (Though that is, certainly, a different thing to ask)

Let me put on my cranky implementor hat here.

Not a good idea, probably. The cranky hat doesn't look well with my ";)".

The "should" referred to my previous estimate, not to any reality. To clarify it further: in order for me to "win" my own "contest", it "should" have been released over a year ago.

I agree with most of what you say, am semi-active on perl6-language (oops, sorry), and donated to the fund (and plan on doing so again, repeatedly once every year, if I can afford it). I actively discuss Perl 6 on several fora and in general am very positive. I agree with the "released when ready" idea and prefer years of waiting to having a horribly implemented language. I may not agree with every decision made (things bothering me are unicodenon-ASCII operators, confusing use of the colon, overuse of the new french quoty qw, \d**{} and arbitrary limits like do-while), but I think Perl 6 is a really cool language. I do not mind that it is not released yet for I understand that quality takes time, and that implementation with an unfinished design leads to chaos.

Please, get rid of the cranky hat and re-read my post. This time, pay more attention to the ";)" and read the entire thread in the appropriate context: fun speculation. Or buy me a cranky head too, so that I can start a troll/flame war. It would be about something else, though, because debate is HARD when you actually agree with one another.

Juerd # { site => 'juerd.nl', plp_site => 'plp.juerd.nl', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }

Next time, can you please close those tr and td tags?

The tags are closed, but I presume you mean the elements aren't closed. However, closing those elements is not needed. From the HTML 4.01 spec:

<!ELEMENT TR       - O (TH|TD)+        -- table row -->
<!ELEMENT (TH|TD)  - O (%flow;)*       -- table header cell, table dat
+a cell-->
[download]

If I liked to type in more keystrokes than necessary, I'd be programming in Java instead of Perl. If you have broken software that can't deal elements that aren't closed, complain to your vendor.

The XHTML spec says they have to be closed (or use an empty tag, like <td />, but I generally only use that for tags like <hr /> that don't have any data associated with them). Properly balanced tags make things much easier to parse.

"There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.

I stand corrected.

While it is certaintly true that the only people who can complain are the ones that are working on it, it is also true that we do not like being taunted with all this shiny goodness if there is no schedule. This is, sadly, pretty much the reason I found Ruby ... and I really like it. However I want Perl6 to come along and would like early alpha or beta releases, and have features come in later (6.1, 6.2) etc, rather than have development go on forever without getting "users" into the fold.

"Release early, release often ..." isn't a silver bullet, but I will say that spending too much time in the design phase, at least in my projects, is usually lethal, unless it's constant redesign coupled with implementation.

Once you release the first version of a language compiler/interpreter, you are bound by it because people will rightly expect program to run on later versions.

It is difficult to release early, and later add features or you get into the syntactic mess that are perl5 and C++ with the addition of OO into an existing language. Less visible for the users of the langage is the problem of new features implementation. You can't graft signigicant features after the fact without redesigning the internals or being bound by them. Perl5 threads come to mind

These problems of compatibility with existing code, coherency of the language, coherency of the implementation seems to escape the mind of well-willing but misguided people like shlomi on Freshmeat.

Like every language, Perl5 is bound by decisions that were made since its inception. In fact, as a synthetic language, it integrated features from diverse Unix program in one language but it perpetuated accidents of history dating from the beginning of Unix. In a sense that was a quality because it meant that perl was easy to Unix programmers. But now it is a curse.

Perl6 is a rare occasion to start with a clean slate while benefiting from the experience accumulated thru the years. Larry said something like "let's do it right, no right now". Even when designed with extensibility in mind, early wrong choice are usually there forever. Worse, they tend to propagate to other languages.

Having read the apocalypses, synopses and exegeses, I understood how ambitious is the project. It is worth the wait. It is not fair to compare Perl6 with Python and Ruby and to say: Why should I wait because Python and Ruby are already there? Perl6 is not just a cleant-up perl5 with a few added features. It is a redesigned Perl

If you want Perl6 to be successful but are not interested in the internals, prepare to code for it so that Perl6 rapdidly gets a pool of competent people and various libraries. If you judge by the previous history of Perl and its durability, The investment in learning Perl6 will pay over the years

If you want to play with Perl6 technology, Parrot, the VM that will run Perl6, is already there and running. What is lacking are solid compilers on top of it to stress the current implementation so that its deficiencies are identified and fixed.

-- stefp

Why should I wait because Python and Ruby are already there? Perl6 is not just a cleant-up perl5 with a few added features. It is a redesigned Perl

That that it needs an answer, I will point out that you didn't answer the question ... (meanwhile, I am psychologically incompatible with Python, so you don't have to worry about it!).

Having somewhat of a project management and software design background (err, acquired in weird ways, but nonetheless), and adding empirical evidence .. it does appear that Perl 6 is attempting a HUGE, and I do mean huge BDUF ...

In my personal endeavors, BDUF leads to fatality. As for fragalitiy of interfaces, I do sympathize, although many other languages have survived from very early versions with large-scale changes moving through it with each revision.

If you can't release because you are tracking to a known level of completion, that's one thing ... if you are not sure when it will be done or what it will be when it's done, that's huge -- it's something that you really have to watch out for. Part of software design isn't just making a good interface, it's making a flexibile interface and accomodating change.

OT: To sound a bit heretical, I actually don't care much about Parrot. Sure, it would be nice, but other languages already have fine interpreters. The CLR/Parrot idea is interesting, it could prove useful, but mostly, I am a HLL guy -- and I think in languages not in implementations. The beauty of Parrot will likely to those people who like to work on internals, that's just not me. Anyhow, replacing the VM and the language at the same time may actually be too much.