Re^4: Terminal decline?

I guess the fact that sundial continues to generate activity here, even when he isn't actively courting controversy, could be viewed as a boost to participation.

My informal gut feel is that his past activities underly about 50% of this week's posts in one way or another.

T'is sad to see the bones of this place picked over this way :( I truly miss it.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity.

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Suck that fhit

Comment on Re^4: Terminal decline?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Terminal decline? by LanX (Saint) on Apr 03, 2018 at 13:04 UTC
There are two problem hypotheses A "decline" of Perl A "decline" of PM To prove the latter we should compare the amount of Perl threads on other boards (especially SO) in the same time-frame. I personally think the 90's interface of PM is not overly attractive for younger folks ... Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]
Re^6: Terminal decline? by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Apr 03, 2018 at 17:33 UTC
Besides the snappier interface, performance, and deeper incentive system, there is also just no chance in Hell of a site like PM, that was never Internet popular even at its peak, competing with the foot traffic and visibility of SO/SE because it has unlimited topics and a family of more than 100 sites creating cross pollination and user stickiness. It's the best idea online since wikipedia. It's a shame it was socially engineered by [string of personality pejoratives only appropriate to 4chan redacted]. I can see its value. I cannot enjoy SO in particular. Some of the other SE sites entertain what comes close to actual discussion, humor, and original thought.	[reply]