Re^9: Waiting for a Product, not a Compiler

How do you come up with that "a year and a half"? We've had star releases every 1 to 4 months so far.

Could you please try to elaborate what we should have done differently? We asked the users, just as you said you should, and did what they wanted, exactly as you said we have should. Now it's still wrong. And you still haven't answered my questions how you would proceed without big refactors.

I understand all your criticism, but I still don't understand what we could have done instead. Skip all big refactors, and pile workaround on workaround? Invest all our resources on avoiding regressions, instead of advancing the state of the compiler and implementing the optimizations that people have asked us for?

You criticize continuously, but so far you haven't provided any feasible alternatives. If you continue to do so, you convince me that you're just ranting elaborately, and I'm wasting my time discussing with you.

Perl 6 - second systems done right

Comment on Re^9: Waiting for a Product, not a Compiler

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^10: Waiting for a Product, not a Compiler by Anonymous Monk on Nov 29, 2011 at 08:32 UTC
listen, I'm not saying you have done a bad job. I know you are doing something new which no one has done before. So its obvious there are a lot of unknown unknowns which create these rewrites and correction every now and then. But you've got to understand realities of practical software development. When you say your next release is going to break simple programs of a user. That release doesn't qualify as a production release. Its a experimental release at the maximum. And most people when they learn about this will never bother to even adopt your release. This is precisely why Rakudo star releases aren't getting traction. Because you are saying the users, that the release contains some features, you don't quite really have documentation for it, CPAN isn't compatible, and there is no guarantee of the same features working fine in the next release. This doesn't qualify to be a production release. Now lets look at the Perl 5 release. Once something is released, it goes out with a documentation. If something needs to be changed or removed or added there are deprecation cycles. And CPAN is always compatible. Perl 6 production release need has to be feature complete. It will be impractical on our behalf to expect that. But it needs to adhere to most common definitions of production release. Its these experimental releases that are really messing up the perception.	[reply]
Re^11: Waiting for a Product, not a Compiler by moritz (Cardinal) on Nov 29, 2011 at 08:53 UTC
chromatic expresses very strong opinions on what we are doing wrong, but refuses to tell me what would be right way. I want to learn what he thinks would be a better way, or have him stop his ranting. Perl 6 - second systems done right	[reply]
Re^12: Waiting for a Product, not a Compiler by Anonymous Monk on Nov 29, 2011 at 09:30 UTC
In short. You need one minimal feature complete, completely backwards compatible, documentation ready, CPAN compatible product. After that in future releases you need to gradually grow it. Is it clear now.	[reply]
Re^13: Waiting for a Product, not a Compiler by chromatic (Archbishop) on Nov 29, 2011 at 18:55 UTC
Re^13: Waiting for a Product, not a Compiler by moritz (Cardinal) on Nov 29, 2011 at 09:49 UTC
Re^14: Waiting for a Product, not a Compiler by Herkum (Parson) on Nov 30, 2011 at 21:00 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^14: Waiting for a Product, not a Compiler by wfsp (Abbot) on Nov 29, 2011 at 10:23 UTC
Re^14: Waiting for a Product, not a Compiler by Anonymous Monk on Nov 29, 2011 at 11:10 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^12: Waiting for a Product, not a Compiler by Anonymous Monk on Nov 29, 2011 at 09:05 UTC
I want to learn what he thinks would be a better way, or have him stop his ranting. What ranting, where!?	[reply]