good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
Re^3: A wholly inadequate reply to an Anonymous Monkby LanX (Bishop)
|on Apr 23, 2010 at 15:41 UTC||Need Help??|
>> You are right no body really understands the complexity behind what you are trying to build. But ask yourself this question, How are they to understand when you haven't told it to them?
>IMO, this is more FUD ("Nobody is talking about Perl 6"). Here's an off-the-cuff and horribly incomplete list for 2009, in no particular order:
Sorry, but how many of these posts are talking about the complexity behind Perl 6?
I know some of the people and read a lot from them, I also read Dan Sugalski's blog from start till burnout.
I suppose most of these posts have the aim to keep people interested and get them involved and NOT to lower expectations or criticizing the complexity.
This is for sure a fantastic project, but we should start getting realistic about it.
The Perl community could have massive boost just by making a big release with "boring features"┬╣ but could then easily challenge the "sex appeal" from Ruby and Python.
Just like a plane is followed regularly by a bigger plane to keep the market interested and not by a rocket.
And I'm sure this major release would
a) put lots of pressure away from your team and
b) build a bridge to your project by incorporating concepts
c) therefore push the further development of it!
┬╣) Nota bene: I don't say YOU are to implement these boring features!