The polite thing to do would be to catch up on the end of a dead thread
before using a several-day-old posting as a springboard to ask people to
let it go. Please catch yourself in this error in the future.
This thread has gone on for a long time, and is starting to repeat
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, David Grove wrote:
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
I've just read Mark-Jason Dominus' article on www.perl.com, I've been away
from perl6-meta for a while (a month) and I thought I'd catch up a bit.
It's not often you read something as unhelpful as this article.
Like most Perl programmers I just use the language. I have never been
involved in
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:14:25PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
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
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 09:30:00PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 04:42:34PM -0500, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
Not to mention "revisionist history". There were any number of uncourteous
voices during the RFC process.
Exactly. Dan, weren't you the very person who had to
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:10:12 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
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.
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 11:18:01AM +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
Coming from someone whoe probably wrote more RFC's than anyone else (I
count 33), I find that pretty ironic.
I had to inject some sense into the process somehow.
--
Morton's Law:
If rats are experimented upon, they will
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:14:25PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Not in the p5p sense, at least. Regardless of the levels of disapproval,
generally the disapproval was voiced with at least some courtesy. p5p is
rather less polite about things.
I think that's what they call a "false memory".
Anyone think others are needed?
"Myopia neither equates the absence of existence of a distant object, nor
demonstrates the insanity of the non-myopic."
or, roughly translated, "Issues should be faced rather than avoided by
attacking the person who points them out."
David Grove wrote:
"Issues should be faced rather than avoided by
attacking the person who points them out."
Maybe; but that doesn't apply to non-issues being paraded as issues.
--
John Porter
At 04:41 PM 11/3/00 +, David Grove wrote:
Anyone think others are needed?
or, roughly translated, "Issues should be faced rather than avoided by
attacking the person who points them out."
I'd lump that in with act professionally, though in general issues do need
direct addressing.
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 04:42:34PM -0500, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
Not to mention "revisionist history". There were any number of uncourteous
voices during the RFC process.
Exactly. Dan, weren't you the very person who had to tell people on more
than one occasion to grow up and behave like
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] whispere
d:
| On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:14:25PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
| Not in the p5p sense, at least. Regardless of the levels of disapproval,
| generally the disapproval was voiced with at least some courtesy. p5p
Comparing the perl6-language and the perl5-porters simply doesn't fly.
It's not even comparing apples and oranges, it's like comparing
a busy market place and a faculty lunch.
In the first case we are talking about a crowd of people most of which
do not know each other, do not know what the
At 09:30 PM 11/3/00 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 04:42:34PM -0500, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
Not to mention "revisionist history". There were any number of uncourteous
voices during the RFC process.
Exactly. Dan, weren't you the very person who had to tell people on
Ok,
Iv'e seen this debate - I will try to put something constructive:-
Richard
=Head1 My opinions of the Perl6 RFC process
=head2 Where do I come from this?
I am an amauteur perl user who uses it on web sites and for other admin
tasks. Have I looked at the code? - Yes. Do I know the
Anyone think others are needed?
"Stick to the subject."
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 10:42:34AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:14:25PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Not in the p5p sense, at least. Regardless of the levels of disapproval,
generally the disapproval was voiced with at least some courtesy. p5p is
rather less polite
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
John Porter writes:
David Grove wrote:
This branch of the discussion is getting us nowhere fast.
Nat
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
- 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
et up to do too much,
something I argue that (only?) in hindsight is crystal clear.
- Original Message -
From: Mark-Jason Dominus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 9:11 AM
Subject: Critique available
My critique of th
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
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
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
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.
54 matches
Mail list logo
