Nathan Torkington wrote:
>
> Here's a quote from Jim McCarthy's "Dynamics of Software Development"
> that seems relevant given the recent fracas on perl6-language-regexp:
>
> Someone once asked me, "What's the hardest thing about software
> development?"
>
> I didn't hesitate. "Getting people
David Grove wrote:
> Also, as far as documentation goes, I think it _should_ be written by
> apprentices, so that non-masters can understand it too. That's always been
> a huge criticism of the perldocs. That's not grunt work. That's proper
> allocation of duties to the best suited personnel for
Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Dec 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>
>> Nice. An apprentice is an administrative assistant with a career
>> path. If people are happy to do this, we'd be happy to use them. The
>> chairs proved weak at reporting on their list's activities (I know I
>> was)
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 ord
Larry Wall wrote:
>
> David L. Nicol writes:
> : Steve Fink wrote (and I edited slightly):
> :
> : > I can't figure out why so many people misinterpret my RFC12
> : > as requiring a solution to the halting problem.
> :
> : a large class of incompletely expr
Larry Wall spoke:
>
> Here are some from the "bad" directory. (reads from one) ... and they
> want us to solve the halting problem. No.
That was RFC12, mine. I can't figure out why so many people
interpret that RFC as requiring a solution to the halting problem. If
anything, it explicitly rec
So you're saying that it's ok if people wouldn't want to upgrade on the
basis of one of the improvements, but rather that the aggregation of all
of them had damn well better be worth upgrading for. Fair enough. But
hey, people won't even upgrade to 5.6; when someone asks me "why should
I upgrade t
Alan Burlison wrote:
>
> Adam Turoff wrote:
>
> > It would have been nicer to institute this policy from the start,
> > but no one expected to get 200 RFCs in just over one month, either.
>
> Indeed - I think everyone was astonished by the rate at which they
> appeared. I just hope the code is
Nathan Torkington wrote:
>
> And there's no law that says some areas can't run *faster* than 10%.
"...where all the children are above average.". 10% across the board
demands that, unless you overclock by 10%. :-)
> But I think we have to be realistic. We all want a programming
> language that
> > > 1.Benchmarks of text processing programs show improved performance on
> > perl6 over perl5.
> >
> > Yes, but how much improved? Is 50% in everyone's minds, or is 10%
> > enough? How much improvement is feasible?
>
> As a first approximation to what is realistic, I'm going to put 10%
10 matches
Mail list logo
