I agree partly, but not fully.
Where I agree is that we did a lousy job in having tighter control by
not requiring authors to record the opposing opinions or pointed out
deficiencies, not requiring more work on the implementation side, not
bestowing more power to the chairs/moderators, and so
Simon Cozens wrote:
On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 05:35:17PM -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
Algorithm Inline? OptimizationTime (sec)
GOTO- -O3 1.35
FUNCALL_HYBRID yes -O3 4.20
John Porter writes:
David Grove wrote:
This branch of the discussion is getting us nowhere fast.
Nat
Dan, Jarkko, etc. How about we try to identify the big units we'll be
working on?
parser
optimizer
bytecode
runtime dispatcher (w/knowledge of dynaloading)
data-types
regex
memory
My idea of development is something like this:
* identify the units/modules
* map relationships
David Grove wrote:
since
Larry did open this up to the perl population at large, this was
necessarily to be expected. Logically, getting detailed "implementation"
sections could never have been a serious goal.
I agree.
I'm told that Eiffel is about
the truest OOP language in existence,
Simon Cozens wrote:
On the whole, driving a spike between language and internals by giving them
separate lists was not a good idea.
Nominally. But how many internals experts actually subscribed to
the one and not the other?
--
John Porter
My critique of the Perl 6 RFC process and following discussion is now
available at
http://www.perl.com/pub/2000/11/perl6rfc.html
Mark-Jason Dominus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am boycotting Amazon. See http://www.plover.com/~mjd/amazon.html for
If there's one thing that I know about Larry, it's that he's not stupid.
Neither are the members of the perl community as silly and uninitiated as
the "perl-elite" would make them out to be. I can see _much_ more
information coming out of these RFC's than just the content of the RFC's
in a
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:11:56AM -0500, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
My critique of the Perl 6 RFC process and following discussion is now
available at
http://www.perl.com/pub/2000/11/perl6rfc.html
Agree 100% to every point.
--
"The best index to a person's character is a) how he
At http://www.perl.com/pub/2000/11/perl6rfc.html, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
There are a lot of people around who do have some understanding of the
Perl internals. An RFC author who knows that he does not understand the
internals should not have a lot of trouble finding someone to consult
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:12:50AM -0500, John Porter wrote:
As an RFC author and persistent discutant, I always assumed that
all/most/many of such qualified internals folks would be reading
the perl6 lists, and would squawk when appropriate.
On the whole, driving a spike between language
On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 05:35:17PM -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
Algorithm Inline? OptimizationTime (sec)
GOTO- -O3 1.35
FUNCALL_HYBRID yes -O3 4.20
FUNCALL_PREDICTABLE no -O3
- Original Message -
From: "Nathan Torkington" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not only is it wrong, it's also hurting our chances. When an article
in perl.com is so overwhelmingly negative about the work so far, do
you think that stirs confidence in what we're doing? Do you think
that people
Simon Cozens writes:
http://www.perl.com/pub/2000/11/perl6rfc.html
Agree 100% to every point.
I don't. A constructive critique of the Perl 6 RFC process might be
useful. This onslaught of negativity is not.
The Perl 6 RFC process got people talking about the future, and we
have a
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:42:08AM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
But what really pisses me off is that the harshest critics are people
who bowed out or were silent during the stage where we were setting up
the RFC process.
I'm trying to say this carefully, but the first few days of the
Your critique is related to an issue that I have thought about
for a while: what exactly was the RFC process to accomplish. If one views
the RFC process as
"brainstorming", then the RFC process unfortunately rolled two entirely
separate functions, the process of brainstorming and the process of
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 06:08:59PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:44:50AM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
Firstly, now, for the first time in the Perl history, we opened up the
floodgates, so the speak, and had at least some sort of (admittedly)
weakly formalized
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote:
When an article
in perl.com is so overwhelmingly negative about the work so far, do
you think that stirs confidence in what we're doing?
To strive for balance, I think perl.com's home page
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 03:42:41PM -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote:
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote:
When an article
in perl.com is so overwhelmingly negative about the work so far, do
Yup. I can't see www.sun.com carrying an
Bennett Todd wrote:
Java is crappy engineering with superb marketing,
This is so wide of reality, I conclude that you don't know the
first thing about Java.
a good choice when you want or expect your project to
fail and you are hunting for a way to have someone else to blame for
it. Perl
We threw the floodgates open and a lot of stuff washed in. The overall
odor and consistency of the stuff wasn't that great, and the number of
real gems mixed in was kind of low. 'Nuff said. What's the point in a
purely retrospective analysis? We do need to take the lessons learned,
but only in
John Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bennett Todd wrote:
Java is crappy engineering with superb marketing,
This is so wide of reality, I conclude that you don't know the
first thing about Java.
Ok, Visual Basic then.
David Grove wrote:
Ok, Visual Basic then.
Really? Let's see:
If [Visual Basic] is well-suited to their needs, as they see those
needs, then [migrating to it from perl] is a good thing. Specifically
anybody whose needs could be adequately met by [Visual Basic] would
certainly be
I'm probably pouncing on a point you didn't intend to make,
disagreeing with something you didn't intend to say here, picking on
subtleties of how you phrased it, so I'm gonna omit the
attribution:-). I still wanna pounce on this.
[ all sorts o' reality omitted ] how many people are going to
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:42:08AM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
But what really pisses me off is that the harshest critics are people
who bowed out or were silent during the stage where we were setting
up
the RFC process.
I'm trying to say
Absolutely and double the vulgarity. I can't imagine that the article was
posted at all. Several of us (you guys) have _some_ pull at O'Reilly...
please suggest that the article be pulled. For the company that backs perl
the most to publish something so disgustingly myopic is unconscionable.
I'll make this short. Here is what I see as the root cause
of the perl6-* lists errr, hubbub.
I think the biggest lesson learned here should be to have
more than "days" between the decision to open it to The World,
and announcing that it would be opened to The World.
It doesn't take a
* David Grove ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [03 Nov 2000 07:30]:
Absolutely and double the vulgarity. I can't imagine that the article
was posted at all. Several of us (you guys) have _some_ pull at
O'Reilly... please suggest that the article be pulled. For the company
that backs perl the most to
To strive for balance, I think perl.com's home page should also have the
links to Larry's ALS talk and slides.
Thanks very much. I have asked the folks at Songline to arrange this.
We were going to carry these, and in fact the ORA were prepared to
complete Nat's transcript, but then Ask
Frank Tobin has generously given me permission to forward his comments
to this list.
--- Forwarded Message
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 00:31:42 -0600 (CST)
From: Frank Tobin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Response to Critique of Perl 6 RFC Process
2000-11-02-16:30:36 John Porter:
Bennett Todd wrote:
Java is crappy engineering with superb marketing,
This is so wide of reality, I conclude that you don't know the
first thing about Java.
Conclude whatever you like. I started by reading the language and VM
specs when it was first
I'd really hate it if the sort of people who use Java were to join
the perl camp, then we'd be tainted by their work.
...
program, never could, never will, just read trade magazines that
tell them what they should babble at meetings to avoid getting
caught out as completely pointless and
Nathan Torkington wrote:
Robustness
Portability
Maintainability
Testability
Reusability
Speed
Simplicity
Size
Hey, whoa. Aren't we pre-maturely optimizing the development
process? IMHO we're still in the day dreaming "what if" mode of
development. (We don't even have a
Ken Fox writes:
Nathan Torkington wrote:
Robustness
Portability
Maintainability
Testability
Reusability
Speed
Simplicity
Size
Hey, whoa. Aren't we pre-maturely optimizing the development
process?
Not in deciding priorities. These are factors of architecture
2000-11-02-17:30:56 Nathan Torkington:
Here are the things to order, in my order:
Robustness
Portability
Maintainability
Testability
Reusability
Speed
Simplicity
Size
A couple of negligible wibbles to toss in: would it make sense to
separate "Simplicity" into two
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
FWIW, I would like to see results for these little tests also for
other platforms than just gcc on Intel (on Linux...) :-) I tried
quickly hacking the test script and C source to be more portable
but it took me more than a few minutes so I gave up...
I just tried on
Steve Fink wrote:
and I get the same numbers for -O (I used -O3) but different numbers
without optimization. Maybe we should assume optimization?
The difference was probably -fomit-frame-pointer that I used in both
the -g and -O cases. Some of my code was fragile to optimization so I
wanted to
I'll just fork a few copies of myself and I'm ready to start...
Another angle is to collect a set of mantras, design principles
if you will, something like:
Avoid copying.
Avoid premature optimization.
Be extensible.
Be orthogonal. Orthogonal be.
Be
Another angle is to collect a set of mantras, design principles
if you will, something like:
Avoid copying.
Avoid premature optimization.
Be extensible.
Be orthogonal. Orthogonal be.
Be portable.
Be scalable.
Quite right. This is the standard
Steve Fink wrote:
I just did all that because the magnitude of the difference between
using separate functions and using the closer-to-assembly solutions
(switch and goto) seemed too large. I can easily believe they're faster,
but not by that much, and I didn't want to unnecessarily lose the
I think the best architecture would be one with two dispatch systems.
A really fast/simple one (possibly obscure) that's used for small
instructions like array indexing, counter increments, sub calls, etc.
It wouldn't be the first time when a hybrid solution proves to be the
best balance
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 06:43:10PM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
FWIW, I would like to see results for these little tests also for
other platforms than just gcc on Intel (on Linux...) :-) I tried
quickly hacking the test script and C source to be more portable
but it
Fwiw:
BSDI BSD/OS 4.0.1 .../GENERIC i386
gcc version 2.7.2.1
-O3 none
GOTO1.739.31
SWITCH 7.4019.81
Everything else 12.62 15.24
--
John Porter
Some sort of SGI megaserver, dunno MHz, but load is high (more than
five times the number of CPUs...), so the following numbers are a tad slow,
but I guess relatively right:
-O3 none
switch 7.027.70
orig16.59 15.92
naive 18.96 18.96
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 06:07:14PM -0500, Bennett Todd wrote:
I'd really hate it if the sort of people who use Java were to join
the perl camp, then we'd be tainted by their work.
You miss the point. *We already are*. Now what?
--
Hi, this is Ken. What's the root password?
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 02:01:45PM +, David Grove wrote:
Absolutely and double the vulgarity. I can't imagine that the article was
posted at all. Several of us (you guys) have _some_ pull at O'Reilly...
please suggest that the article be pulled.
Of course, because censorship is the only
At 10:11 AM 11/2/00 -0500, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
My critique of the Perl 6 RFC process and following discussion is now
available at
http://www.perl.com/pub/2000/11/perl6rfc.html
The biggest issue I have with this (and had the first time around) is the
complaint about the
At 06:08 PM 11/2/00 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:44:50AM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
Firstly, now, for the first time in the Perl history, we opened up the
floodgates, so the speak, and had at least some sort of (admittedly)
weakly formalized protocol of
At 03:13 PM 11/2/00 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Dan, Jarkko, etc. How about we try to identify the big units we'll be
working on?
I have a list I've been fiddling with, and an overall design framework.
I've been offline for most of the week (IP connection down--if mail to me
bounced, do
Simon Cozens writes:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 02:01:45PM +, David Grove wrote:
Absolutely and double the vulgarity. I can't imagine that the article was
posted at all. Several of us (you guys) have _some_ pull at O'Reilly...
please suggest that the article be pulled.
Of course,
Censorship, the type the I've opposed in the Perl community, is that which
provides the benefit of false impressions (a.k.a. marketing by fraud by
ommission of the truth) for the procurement of the almighty dollar.
I'm not suggesting censorship. I'm questioning O'Reilly's position.
Simon
David Grove writes:
I'm not suggesting censorship. I'm questioning O'Reilly's position.
I don't think this has anything to do with O'Reilly--Mark wrote the
article, and it's on perl.com because of that. Our rebuttal will
also go there. O'Reilly hasn't got anything to gain by putting the
I just figured it was time for a little nudge.
Yes, thank you. It is on www.perl.com now.
53 matches
Mail list logo
