|
Re^4: Why Perl 6 is taking so !@#$ long
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Oct 21, 2006 at 20:41 UTC
|
I'm afraid I stopped following the progress of Parrot around the time of my post above, so I have no idea what has happened in the interim and cannot comment on what if anything has changed or improved.
As for what voids existed at that point in time, I would be hard pushed now to remember exactly what my concerns were. I do have a few references and emails from off-forum discussions I had at the time, but trying to rekindle my understanding of the issues now would be dificult. More to the point, most of the issues involved are a matter of history in the parrot forum archives and available to anyone with an interest.
There are also much better qualified people than I to analyse and summerise the debates that took place back then that convinced me that things were not headed in the right direction. And people who have continued to follow the project that will be better placed to discuse what if any course corrections have taken place.
Basically, "No comment".
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
Re^4: Why Perl 6 is taking so !@#$ long
by blazar (Canon) on Oct 21, 2006 at 21:39 UTC
|
What are those architectural voids? Have any of them been resolved in the time since this thread was posted?
Well, I've never followed parrot development, but in the meanwhile Dan left; well actually that was well before the post you're responding to was written: you can read his rant^Wconsiderations here, it's a nice and very interesting reading anyway. However I don't even know what those architectural voids are, nor does he who hinted at them, but to answer your question, a wild guess based upon reasonable assumptions may yield 'no' as an answer. But what is important is the beast is still actively worked on and regular snapshots of it are released. So it's a lively project. Have faith!
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
Choosing not to talk is not the same as not knowing.
Sorry to have been the cause for the following argument. I didn't mean my remark to be any sort of accusation or anything like that. I thought of it as being more on the line of "well there are so many issues and so much active development that it may even be hard to know which issues was one considering only a relatively moderate amount of time ago", which is what your words suggested me too. And I also wanted to underline that the positive thing in all this is that active development does take place. All in all, however, you have my public apologies if my comment sounded offensive.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
Choosing not to talk is not the same as not knowing.
Not participating in the project, admitting to not following the project, and choosing to say anyway "I don't think the project will succeed but I'm not going to tell you why" is a fairly gutless way to snipe from the sidelines.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
|