in reply to Re^3: Hockey Sticks
in thread Hockey Sticks

I have neither the time or energy to continue to devote to making a usable Perl 6 happen.

And yet you have the time and energy to complain, at length, repeating the same points, even when you've seen reasonable rebuttals supported by irrefutable evidence?

Volunteers will work on what volunteers want to work on, and if they want to do only the fun things, so be it.

You're repeating an accusation that has been repeatedly denied, with clear evidence to back up those denials.

It seems you did not understand why I inserted the "Late, fat, and ugly" piece above. I'll grant it was subtle. Please click the link if you wish to put things in perspective.

"Professional embarrassment"? Really?

You tell me. What is going on for you? I thought you claimed you persuaded others to start building a business product based on Perl 6 earlier than your partners thought wise:

"the bitter irony that said partner wasn't even keen on starting the project, as I am the only one among us who but the opportunity cost of watching and waiting was minimal." (from Waiting for a Product, not a Compiler)
So I thought your current perspective would therefore naturally be something akin to professional embarrassment.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Hockey Sticks
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Jan 17, 2012 at 20:25 UTC
    It seems you did not understand why I inserted the "Late, fat, and ugly" piece above.

    Firefox eventually shipped working software that people actually use. Until Perl 6 achieves the same thing, I don't take the comparison as evidence of the historical inevitability that Perl 6 must succeed because another long running project eventually succeeded. (I think a better comparison is E17.)

    As for your curiously chosen word "evidence", until the point at which any Perl 6 implementation reaches any degree of usability as a product, I reserve the right to be dubious in public and in private at every press release which trumpets loudly that eschaton is immanent. I've helped produce a few of those press releases in the past decade, I've helped produce a chunk of the code, and I even made a very testable prediction about how long the nom rewrite would take back in December 2010 and January 2011 (and it turns out I was right); I think I've earned the right to be skeptical.

[reply]
      Firefox eventually shipped working software that people actually use.
      And what is one left to make of the ill-informed stories written about it like "Late, fat, and ugly"?
      I reserve the right to be dubious in public and in private at every press release which trumpets loudly that eschaton is immanent.
      "Press release"? "Eschaton is immanent"?!? (Do you know what "immanent" means? I think Buckley's turning over.)

      How is me posting on PerlMonks, in the section designated for people to "share opinions on ... Perl 6 development", a press release? How is it loudly trumpeting anything? You say I'm exaggerating?

      I think I've earned the right to be skeptical.
      I'm all for skepticism. I don't think anyone has to earn the right to it (I accept that you apparently do). But that doesn't mean you have to voice your skepticism, and it doesn't excuse you repeating, in unchanging, assertive, and extreme language, points that have already been reasonably addressed, which it's clear you have at least read (even if you haven't understood them).
[reply]
        Ever hear of projection?

        Stay classy, #perl6. The strategy of telling potential users that they're wrong for what they're asking for will surely someday work.

[reply]

In Section Meditations