in reply to Perl 6 - I hope it won't take a decade

I may be misreading your comments, but your tone implies a degree of dissatisfaction with the Perl 6 development process. I'm wondering why exactly?

  • Comment on Re: Perl 6 - I hope it won't take a decade

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Perl 6 - I hope it won't take a decade
by Anonymous Monk on Jan 18, 2006 at 14:25 UTC
    I remember this incident...
    Jon showed up to the meeting late and found us talking about the community and started throwing things to express his discontent with how perl itself was stagnating, possibly even dying, and that we should be talking about reviving Perl.
    I believe in momentum. If it takes too long, it will wear down the very people working on it and diminish the interest and expectations of those eagerly awaiting its release.

      And you feel that whining about it on perlmonks will somehow increase momentum? More than contributing to one of the many projects/resources that lead up to Perl 6 would?


      There are ten types of people: those that understand binary and those that don't.
        I'm not whinning. I think you should look at it positively. I have been using Perl and I love it. If I could contribute, I would have done it in 2001.

        I was concerned that if it dragged on, it might never materialise.

      I believe in momentum. If it takes too long, it will wear down the very people working on it and diminish the interest and expectations of those eagerly awaiting its reease.
      I believe in FSM. "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed (...) and camels and parrots and finally a creature called Perl 6!"

      Now, it happens that in recent times FSM gave me a sign: evidence is that people is not being worn down and that on the contrary we're living a period of renewed interest and intense development that doesn't give the slightest sign of slowing down. That's since Pugs appeared...

      Update: s/FMS/FSM/ as per Nude Reaper's remark - in case you wonder, even though it was repeated twice, it was a typo, of course.

        That would be FSM