Kirrily Skud Robert writes:
> Wasn't he meant to be keeping us up to date with snippets of what he's
> doing/thinking about? I recall Nat posting a couple of months ago that
> he'd talked to Larry and Larry had said he'd do this.
I think the problem is that the RFCs aren't really a list of the
t
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 07:13:30PM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 05:03:12PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > There's obvious FUD out there and we don't seem to be giving the impression of
> > getting much done, or doing anything to counter it.
>
> Let's be fair. We're not ge
On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 02:52:35AM -0800, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> I made a simple list of what we have so far at
> http://dev.perl.org/ppd/
Magic! Thanks very much!
(And for all the rest of the perl.org work, natch... :)
--
"It is easier to fight for principles than to live up to them."
--
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Ask, could we have the PDDs placed up on dev.perl.org in the
> same way as the RFCs, please?
I made a simple list of what we have so far at
http://dev.perl.org/ppd/
- ask
--
ask bjoern hansen - http://ask.netcetera.dk/
> While I'm not in a position to rush Larry, we are starting in on the bits
> of the internals that we can do without much input from him. It's slow
> going (mainly because we've been waiting) but it has started.
well, I don't think that anyone should be in the position to 'rush' anyone else,
b
At 11:48 AM 2/12/2001 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > Rushing the process because of intermittent PR problems isn't going
> > to make Perl6 any better at achieving it's goal - solving tomorrow's
> > problems better than Perl5.
>
>Again, I don't think that this would be rushing things at all. Give
> Language design is a very tough nut to crack, and we decided (as
> a group) that we don't want a language designed by committee, we
> want a languaged designed by Larry.
Right, but does it hurt to give general guide-posts on how the language is to
operate? If everybody knows that it is going
Just for those who don't read perl6-language, ESR has come on and is
reevaluating his statements. For the record, he gave Java and TCL a
much harder time.
Simon Cozens wrote:
> Edward Peschko wrote:
> > And PR is a function of people listening to people that they know (and
> > presumably respect). As much as we make summaries, et al, it is Larry that
> > they primarily know. And Larry saying something will get it put on slashdot.
>
> If we had mo
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 08:18:30PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Just speaking for myself, I'd rather see an apology. A retraction
> is impersonal, but an apology implies you regret it.
Fair enough. I saw a retraction as "eek, I didn't mean to say *that*".
Sorry, brian. I *didn't* mean to sa
Simon Cozens writes:
> I did say that I retracted my remarks.
Just speaking for myself, I'd rather see an apology. A retraction
is impersonal, but an apology implies you regret it.
If I appear to be hounding you about it, it's because I'm appalled. I
expect sensitivity and courtesy from everyo
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 06:40:49PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Apologizing would be a good place to start. As many folks have
> pointed out, it's hard to find capable intelligent volunteers.
> And you just chased one away, a reprehensible act of destruction.
I did say that I retracted my r
Simon Cozens writes:
> > okay. i quit.
>
> Well, hm. I'd rather we actually made something positive out of this.
Apologizing would be a good place to start. As many folks have
pointed out, it's hard to find capable intelligent volunteers.
And you just chased one away, a reprehensible act of de
By the way, Ed, mail to you is bouncing with user unknown.
--
$\=" ";@a=qw/hacker, Perl another Just/;sub TIESCALAR{bless[]};tie $a,$a;
*STORE=*FETCH=sub{print pop @a};$_++for$a,$a;
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 03:30:19PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> And PR is a function of people listening to people that they know (and
> presumably respect). As much as we make summaries, et al, it is Larry that
> they primarily know. And Larry saying something will get it put on slashdot.
Ye
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 05:03:12PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> There's obvious FUD out there and we don't seem to be giving the impression of
> getting much done, or doing anything to counter it.
Let's be fair. We're not getting much done, and that's a *GOOD* thing.
Language design is a very
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 11:05:22PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 03:00:05PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > Again, We'll have continued discussion, but what the perl development
> > project needs right now is a swift kick of *direction* from larry. And I'm
> > pretty sure t
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 03:00:05PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> Again, We'll have continued discussion, but what the perl development
> project needs right now is a swift kick of *direction* from larry. And I'm
> pretty sure that he knows this.
I thought part of the idea was that we become self
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 05:03:12PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 11:28:45AM -0500, brian d foy wrote:
> > okay. i quit.
>
> Well, hm. I'd rather we actually made something positive out of this.
>
> There's obvious FUD out there and we don't seem to be giving the impressio
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 05:03:12PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> In order to do something about this, I suggest that we should:
> i) ...
> ii) ...
I forgot iii)...
Ask, could we have the PDDs placed up on dev.perl.org in the same way as the
RFCs, please?
So far we have
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ms
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 11:28:45AM -0500, brian d foy wrote:
> okay. i quit.
Well, hm. I'd rather we actually made something positive out of this.
There's obvious FUD out there and we don't seem to be giving the impression of
getting much done, or doing anything to counter it. Part of the probl
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Hey, Brian, you're meant to be the PR guy.
>
> Your strategy might work in the corporate world, but in the open source
> world, the first rule of PR is to actually make sense. This may come as
> a bit of a shock, I know.
> Please sort it out. Now.
okay
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 06:57:03AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Likewise. More so since I didn't even receive it.
I retract that; I've been having mail problems all weekend and it's
since arrived.
> Brian, you're not in my good books today, this month or this year.
> Please sort it out. Now.
I
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Perhaps we're not giving the right impression. Hey, brian, aren't you supposed
> to be preventing this from happening?
no, it isn't.
--
brian d foy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 01:46:42AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> brian d foy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > > Perhaps we're not giving the right impression. Hey, brian, aren't
> > > you supposed to be preventing this from happening?
> > no, it isn't.
>
> I
brian d foy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> > Perhaps we're not giving the right impression. Hey, brian, aren't
> > you supposed to be preventing this from happening?
>
> no, it isn't.
I find this response somewhat mysterious.
--
http://www.tu
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What *is* going on over there, anyway? It is unfortunately true that
> the effort looks stalled from the outside.
My concerns, exactly.
-- Johan
On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 06:17:19PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> The obvious and cutting rejoinder for me to make would be:
> "Hey. If I believed this, I'd still be writing Perl."
Don't look now, but your bias is showing. :)
> What *is* going on over there, anyway? It is unfortunately t
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
[...]
> minimalism) and I tried to, but there was some kind of ugly technical
> snafu with Skud's listserv and I couldn't get signed on.
listserv? We use ezmlm around here. :) If you still want to join in
then look at http://dev.perl.org/ - http://dev.p
> Eric Raymond's book-in-development ``The Art of Unix Programming'' says
> this about the future of Perl:
>> Perl usage has grown respectably, but the language itself has been stagnant
>> for two years or more.
> Bah. Looks like my Perl5-Porters summaries have been completely in vain. :)
yeah,
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Yes, but you see, we're not generating code. All the rest of the stuff is
> irrelevant, and Real Hackers don't need to design--it's all self-evident.
> Besides, you only need to design if you're building one of those Cathedral
> thingies, and we all know how
At 07:06 PM 2/9/2001 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > Perl's internals are notoriously grubby; it's been understood for years
> that
> > the language's implementation needs to be rewritten from scratch, but an
> > attempt in 1999 failed and another seems presently stalled.
>
>If that other is Perl
On Friday 09 February 2001 14:06, Simon Cozens wrote:
> I'm not sure "stagnant" is the best choice of word to describe that.
It used to be that feeping creaturism was the scourge - folks clamoring for
a little stability in their tools and products. Now it seems what was once
"stability" is now
Eric Raymond's book-in-development ``The Art of Unix Programming'' says
this about the future of Perl:
> Perl usage has grown respectably, but the language itself has been stagnant
> for two years or more.
Bah. Looks like my Perl5-Porters summaries have been completely in vain. :)
The past two
34 matches
Mail list logo
