It nice of you to assume I didn't, that still doesn't explain your stupid message. You want chromatic to STFU because he is burning his bridges with perl6??? Maybe you've read Waiting for a Product, not a Compiler
Yes, I read that the day he posted it. As I'm sure did many other monks interested in... Moose.
My conclusion is that chromatic is "Waiting for a Product, not a Compiler", just as I conclude is true of Wendell Hatcher (try spotting the request for feedback on a Perl6 Hague Grant in this list; hint, it has 16 messages).
Is it any wonder that Perl 6 is more starved for fresh volunteers and enthusiasts than can be reasonably explained by fatigue? It would be far better for Perl 6 posts to suffer Warnock's dilemma than this continual misguided "tough love" (to be charitable) and trolling.
You want chromatic to STFU because he is burning his bridges with perl6???
No. I don't want chromatic to STFU.
I hope chromatic will hear that I think repeatedly responding to "hey, glass is half full!" with "ah, but it's half empty!" turns people away from helping fill the glass, even if it's true that the half-fullers don't seem to be being mathematically rigorous about how much water is in the glass, and even if he ended up thirsty because he thought there was more water in the glass.
Fwiw, assuming I'm right that he's burning bridges (which may well be just in my imagination), I expect there'll always be bridges, because the Perl 6 community, reflecting Larry's character, not mine, would help him build new ones.
Is it any wonder that Perl 6 is more starved for fresh volunteers and enthusiasts than can be reasonably explained by fatigue?
I see—it's my fault that Rakudo Star's gone nowhere usable for at least a year. That's the obvious explanation, and not that Rakudo went off the rails when it's continually failed to improve its bus number, reimplemented large portions of Parrot badly, forked into a dead branch from which Star releases slowly petered out (hey, even compiler releases slipped and skipped), and went into yet another rewrite mode which is still suffering from scope creep? Somehow I get the blame for saying back in December 2010 "Hey, this proposed rewrite has some huge risks and I'm afraid it'll take at least twice as long as you estimate?", when everyone else said "That's crazy, why are you so mean, it's fast and easy and we won't make any mistakes this time!"
My posts right here are the problem?
The most charitable one word response I can muster is nonsense.
This #perl6 persecution complex is bizarre. Every major Perl 6 implementation has had severe project management problems; blaming skeptics for not jumping up and down at the message "Yay, a single number measurement with no meaning behind it has increased, Christmas is coming!" after eleven and a half years of promises yet to be fulfilled is ... well, I don't see it working.
If you want to fix the Perl 6 marketing message, release usable software, and don't lie to people that it's useful and usable (if you pull from HEAD at the right time and can work around regressions and don't mind reading source code and not documentation and are willing to update from HEAD—wait, it was renamed nom a while back—and hang out on IRC all day and...).