in reply to Re^2: Ideas for "fixing" PerlMonks 1.0
in thread Ideas for "fixing" PerlMonks 1.0

> 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

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Ideas for "fixing" PerlMonks 1.0
by jdporter (Paladin) on Dec 16, 2024 at 20:18 UTC
    I would be capable to do a POC without messing around with the local patch system

    Can you elaborate on that?

[reply]
      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

[reply]

        Links, please. Either to patches, or to discussion wherein the gods were shown things which were subsequently ignored. The architecture of the Free Nodelet is specifically to support functionality not needing patch support.

        I will reiterate again:

        1. Standing up a dev system would be extremely difficult. Almost any other approach we could take would be easier.
        2. It is entirely safe to submit a patch. And reverting a patch after it has been applied is also quick and reliable.

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion