Re^2: Perl 6 ... dead?

Documentation? Tests? Remember the disaster with the perl6-documentation list? We couldn't even get basic literals documented due to a lack of any solid information source. Code? Bug Reports? Patrick and Luke are designing and coding off-list and off-cvs.

Sure, a lot of the people who complain are just a bunch of whiny jerks. But if you're not interested in parrot itself (the compiler, regex engine, documentation, tests, builtin-functions, core classes and libraries), there really isn't a lot that a non-cabal member can do for Perl6.

Comment on Re^2: Perl 6 ... dead?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Perl 6 ... dead? by chromatic (Archbishop) on Sep 01, 2004 at 22:56 UTC
Remember the disaster with the perl6-documentation list? I remember it as the "Oh my goodness we have to document absolutely every part of the language starting from the absolute simplest bits and not moving on until we have those things absolutely perfectly complete oh by the way the bungee leader will disappear for three months" list. It helps if you imagine Rocky J. Squirrel responding with "But Bullwinkle, that trick never works!" Perhaps a more charitable lesson to learn is "Don't start a mailing list until people actually do work."	[reply]
Re^4: Perl 6 ... dead? by jryan (Vicar) on Sep 02, 2004 at 02:25 UTC
Oh, I completely agree. However, the list couldn't even make it past those absolute simplest bits. We're talking about freakin' literals here! There wasn't enough solid ground to document LITERALS! I mean, come on, if we couldn't get past strings and numbers what's going to happen with something complicated?	[reply]
Re^5: Perl 6 ... dead? by chromatic (Archbishop) on Sep 02, 2004 at 16:30 UTC
A dog with all four legs tied together can't hunt, either. That doesn't mean no dogs can hunt. It means don't tie your dog's legs together!	[reply]