in reply to Re: Ideas for "fixing" PerlMonks 1.0
in thread Ideas for "fixing" PerlMonks 1.0

Sure, one could do that. But is it really worth the effort? I think not. I maintain that all effort would be better expended on trying to create a replacement system entirely from scratch. (well, not entirely. it should be built with modern, open-source software.)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Ideas for "fixing" PerlMonks 1.0
by etj (Priest) on Dec 17, 2024 at 09:55 UTC
Re^3: Ideas for "fixing" PerlMonks 1.0
by LanX (Saint) on Dec 16, 2024 at 19:30 UTC
    > But is it really worth the effort?

    I think so, yes!

    And I wouldn't try to implement a "modern" perl backend but start with an attractive JS frontend.

    Most importantly I would be capable to do a POC without messing around with the local patch system.

    YMMV. (Certainly)

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
    see Wikisyntax for the Monastery

      I would be capable to do a POC without messing around with the local patch system

      Can you elaborate on that?

        I've elaborated many times that we need a Dev environment.

        Convincing the gods of new features by wording is often a futile endeavor. Being able to show the POC OTOH is far more effective and less frustrating.

        Furthermore did we already see carefully crafted JS POCs fiddled into Nodelet hacks which where mostly ignored by the gods.

        Like tobyinks responsive design or my so called wikisyntax, which can be easily adapted to implement BBcode or markdown.

        There is also a long-standing vulnerability report including patches for everything which haven't been dealt with.

        Cheers Rolf
        (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
        see Wikisyntax for the Monastery