Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, John Tobey wrote:
>
> > The people here are rightly skeptical about the effectiveness of using
> > the 5.6 code base as a starting point for v6, but I have a pretty
> > clear vision of how to do it, and I am committed to giving it a try,
> > even if no one else will. In fact, I'll give you all a tentative
> > schedule:
>
> Wait, you're going to develop Perl 6 ALONE? Wasn't this going to be "the
> community's rewrite of Perl"? Shouldn't you be trying to rally support
> for your vision before issuing schedules?
Not really. I'm going to START developing MY IDEA of how Perl 6 might
work. Very likely, I'll stop or merge with someone else's ideas along
the way.
The schedule is just to get something down, to start fleshing out my
idea and maybe provoke other people into starting on their own
visions, as Simon Cozens has (though he seems to deny it) done with
GLib and Sapphire.
> I'm not trying to knock you - I'm not at all against hearing you plans and
> possibly helping out. This just seems like a pretty strange way to
> approach a community effort.
>
> > 15 August 2000 - detailed draft spec to perl6-internals.
> > 31 August 2000 - revised spec after discussion.
>
> What? You're expecting all the various perl6-* lists to come up with
> final RFCs be the end of the month? And you're expecting to have Larry's
> final plans by then?
Well, I'll read RFC's as they appear and adjust to them as they are
approved, but the stuff I want to do now does not need to wait.
> This sounds hopeful, but mostly unfounded. Without starting with
> threading and Unicode as primary features you're going to be fighting an
> uphill battle ala Perl 5.
This I hope to address in my first architecture document.
Thanks for the comments.
-John
