in reply to Parrot Monks?

The more I think about this, the more I believe we should have a separate section for Perl6/Parrot questions and examples.

It might encourage those few who are currently qualified to answer such questions, to monitor that section, and so help bootstrap some expertise in the general Perl populous.

As it it, those with the expertise, are by definition very busy, and requiring them to wade through every beginners P5 question in order to detect the few P6/Parrot related ones just deters those that might attempt answers--which is a shame.

TimToady does a remarkable job in popping up when required, but we could make life easier for him and the other guys.

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

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Parrot Monks?
by husker (Chaplain) on Jan 11, 2005 at 16:09 UTC
    The same argument could be made to segregate any question based on content: a CGI section, an XML section, a DBI section, an algorithm section, a Net section, etc.... then people with expertise in those areas would be more easily able to find questions to which they could contribute.

    I don't know if that's a good idea or not. I am leaning towards good idea, but not good enough that I want to put up with the hassle of having so many more sections to browse through. I kind of like having SoPW be undifferentiated, so I can get exposure to a lot of neat things that I might not run across if things were compartmentalized.

[reply]

      What I see as the major and qualifying differences between P6/Parrot and CGI/XML/DBI etc., are:

      • The numbers of people that can in any way qualify as experts in the former is in the order of 10 or 20.

        For all the 'others' it is hundreds or even thousands. It may be that there are only 10s of truely expert people, for any given 'other', but the vast majority of questions that are going to be asked are within the experience of 100s or 100s.

      • There are dozens(?) books available for all the 'others'.

        The one Parrot book available was (through necessity) more a statement of intent rather than a definitive reference work.

      • There are FAQs for all the 'others'.
      • There is a mass of example code, for all the 'others'.
      • There are IRC forums, usenet forum, online tutorials, a zillion modules on CPAN. etc. etc.

        P6 and Parrot have (almost) none of these.

      I happen to believe that P6 is doing something important and unique, and is the Perl of the future. I also think that PerlMonk's is the premiere site of it's type for Perl, or any language.

      It seems to me that using the latter, to provide a showcase for it's popularisation and dissemination of teh former, to the wider Perl audience, is natural and desirable step.

      To that end, I'd be more than happy to see one or more of Snippets Section, Code catacombs, and Cool Uses For Perl disappear or be amalgamated to provide a home for a P6/Parrot section.

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

        The numbers of people that can in any way qualify as experts in the former is in the order of 10 or 20.

        These 10 or 20 already use a very smart filter to read Perlmonks: it's called “other people.” At least, I'm pretty sure Larry doesn't always pop up in such a timely fashion simply because of an amazing capability to stay on top of Perlmonks.

        Further, the number of people currently interested in Perl6 or Parrot simply doesn't warrant a section. How many SoPWs about Parrot have been you seeing per month? About Perl6?

        P6 and Parrot have (almost) none of these.

        They have a few central and centralized resources. That is a perfectly purposeful arrangement while the interest is mainly on the hacking (whether language or implementation) rather than using end of things.

        And please don't conflate this with the long-standing issue of the cruftiness of the current section structure. That's an entirely different bag of tricks. If it is at all relevant, then only to show that we shouldn't be quick to create sections.

        I've argued before on many an occasion that we shouldn't have a Perl6 section and I remain firmly in that camp. I've administrated a board, moderated at several others, and been a regular at countless more. The trend is always plainly visible: the readers of a board always ask for more forums for various things they think would make a cool topic. But the mere wish for there to be lots of discussion about a topic one considers cool doesn't mean there will be any, and where the administrators are inexperienced enough to create such forums before there is a pressing need to divide up topics to keep things orderly, these new areas usually remain barren and empty. At some boards, the administrators did such a thorough job of pre-categorizing discussion that they effectively balkanized all contribution, ending up with a board consisting of 40 dead and almost empty forums — where starting with a single forum or maybe two instead might have allowed them to flourish. Those very 40 forums might have been created during the course of the board's life to keep keep things managable, even — but doing so up front just stunts growth before it has a chance to happen.

        Perlmonks isn't quite in the same boat since there's already a large established user base, but I certainly don't see that we are getting flooded with Perl6 and Parrot topics which are making it hard to navigate the site, as things stand.

        If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

        Makeshifts last the longest.

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion