Re^10: Perl 6: Managing breakages across Rakudo versions

I agree! Except that I really am in no rush. I want to see a production release as soon as possible, but I don't want to see these pre-production releases dressed in the trappings of production releases (e.g. "stability policies" and other service level agreements) because that actually harms the reputation of Perl. I agree with Anonymous Monk: until such time as Perl 6 is really production ready, break anything and everything necessary to get it there. The more you break now, the less you'll break later. Presumably.

Comment on Re^10: Perl 6: Managing breakages across Rakudo versions

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^11: Perl 6: Managing breakages across Rakudo versions by raiph (Deacon) on Jul 18, 2012 at 20:28 UTC
Being free to break things without regard for users both helps and hinders Perl 6 and Rakudo in getting to the next level. It helps in the sense it lets the designers and implementors move more freely and quickly. The Rakudo compiler is developed in this spirit. Breaking things hinders Perl 6 and Rakudo to the degree there's a need for many more folk who successfully deploy Perl 6 in a production setting before considering calling Perl 6 "production ready" and folk who might do so are averse to signs of excessive instability. The Rakudo Star bundle is developed for these folk. To encourage folk to try Perl 6 in production settings, and respond to complaints about rewrites, Patrick considers it necessary to at least have explicit public understanding about managing breakages across versions of Rakudo Star. (Fwiw I would say the Parrot team made the mistake of prematurely deploying an onerous stability policy but the Perl 6 and Rakudo teams have not.)	[reply]
Four Legs Good, Five Legs Bad by chromatic (Archbishop) on Jul 18, 2012 at 22:07 UTC
... calling Perl 6 "production ready"... If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? It doesn't matter what you call Perl 6. The fact of it is that, for the foreseeable future, deploying a Perl 6 application will require you to follow the Perl 6 development process pretty closely. Sure, you can get a lot done with the state of either of the two leading implementations—if you're willing to invest the time in an immature product. Sure, there's a renewed commitment to improving the maturity of Rakudo at least. Those are all well and good, but a tail is still a tail and not a leg.	[reply]
Re: Four Legs Good, Five Legs Bad by raiph (Deacon) on Jul 19, 2012 at 16:50 UTC
Your summary is in the right ballpark. Your dog dig makes no sense to me. Who's calling Perl 6 "production ready"?	[reply]
Re^2: Four Legs Good, Five Legs Bad by chromatic (Archbishop) on Jul 19, 2012 at 17:37 UTC
Re^3: Four Legs Good, Five Legs Bad by raiph (Deacon) on Jul 19, 2012 at 23:49 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^12: Perl 6: Managing breakages across Rakudo versions by jdporter (Paladin) on Jul 18, 2012 at 20:35 UTC
there's a need for many more folk who successfully deploy Perl 6 in a production setting before considering calling Perl 6 "production ready" Hard to imagine anyone saying that with a straight face.	[reply]