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 getting
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
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.
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
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 a
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,
but
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 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. i
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
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
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 impression of
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
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;
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
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
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
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 say
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.
--
a
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]
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 6, I
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
