At 12:47 PM 5/10/01 -0400, David Grove wrote: >Unless Perl 6 is capable of parsing and running that 99.9% (or higher) of >Perl 5 scripts originally foretold, I foresee a far worse outcome for Perl 6 >than has happened for an almost universally rejected 5.6 and 5.6.1. > >Fun is fun. But work costs money, guys. And if you cost people money with a >free tool, repercussions could be bad not just for Perl but for free >languages, among which Perl has heretofore been the leader of the pack. > >Actually, Peter, I was getting very, very close to writing this anyway. I am not attempting to make nearly so contentious a point (or points). This may be better off in a separate thread. -- Peter Scott Pacific Systems Design Technologies http://www.perldebugged.com
- Re: Perl, the new generation Mike Lacey
- Re: Perl, the new generation Mike Lacey
- Re: Perl, the new generation Michael G Schwern
- RE: Perl, the new generation David Grove
- Re: Perl, the new generation Dan Sugalski
- Re: Perl, the new generation Michael G Schwern
- Re: Perl, the new generation Richard Proctor
- Re: Perl, the new generation Mike Lacey
- RE: Perl, the new generation David Grove
- Re: Perl, the new generation Michael G Schwern
- Re: Perl, the new generation Peter Scott
- Re: Perl, the new generation Larry Wall
- RE: Perl, the new generation David Grove
- Re: Perl, the new generation Simon Cozens
- RE: Perl, the new generation David Grove
- Re: Perl, the new generation Michael G Schwern
- Re: Perl, the new generation Simon Cozens
- Re: Perl, the new generation Peter Scott
- Re: Perl, the new generation Simon Cozens
- Re: Perl, the new generation Piers Cawley
- Re: Perl, the new generation Mike Lacey