At 11:08 AM 10/5/00 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>At 01:38 PM 10/5/00 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, John Porter wrote:
>>
>> > Peter Scott wrote:
>> > > the idea is to be an extension of Larry's creative thinking
>> > > process. Neither of us is deciding what goes into Perl 6, and
>> neither is
>> > > the community - I hope. Larry is.
>> >
>> > Uh, then why did Larry say "perl 5 was my rewrite, perl 6 is the
>> > community's rewrite"? Clearly he does not think of himself as the
>> > community. He has said it: this is *our* rewrite.
>>
>>Perl 6 is going to be the community's rewrite. His design to start, but
>>the community's rewrite.
>
>'rewrite' is not the same as 'design', fortunately. I fervently hope that
>the language design will be the product only of ideas Larry either came up
>with or agreed with; if we get into some voting scenario, that spells
>doom. May I point out that COBOL was designed by a committee.
I'm not sure I'd really hold COBOL up as a bad example--for all that people
loathe it (and I really dislike it myself) it does what it's supposed to do
rather well, and it is an *old* language, predating 95% of the current art.
(Heck, it spawned a good chunk of the current art)
Anyway, at some point I expect the language design will get handed off to
someone else. That's what's happened already with perl 5--the current
pumpking is responsible for changes in the language. Granted they're not
huge changes, but they are changes, for better or worse.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
