Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
more useful options
 
PerlMonks  

Four Legs Good, Five Legs Bad

by chromatic (Archbishop)
on Jul 18, 2012 at 22:07 UTC ( #982547=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^11: Perl 6: Managing breakages across Rakudo versions
in thread Perl 6: Managing breakages across Rakudo Star versions

... calling Perl 6 "production ready"...

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

It doesn't matter what you call Perl 6. The fact of it is that, for the foreseeable future, deploying a Perl 6 application will require you to follow the Perl 6 development process pretty closely. Sure, you can get a lot done with the state of either of the two leading implementations—if you're willing to invest the time in an immature product. Sure, there's a renewed commitment to improving the maturity of Rakudo at least.

Those are all well and good, but a tail is still a tail and not a leg.


Comment on Four Legs Good, Five Legs Bad
Re: Four Legs Good, Five Legs Bad
by raiph (Friar) on Jul 19, 2012 at 16:50 UTC
    Your summary is in the right ballpark. Your dog dig makes no sense to me. Who's calling Perl 6 "production ready"?
      Who's calling Perl 6 "production ready"?

      If you're going to tell anecdotes about how "real people are using it in production now!" (Re^4: Perl 6: Managing breakages across Rakudo versions), you really ought to disclaim that anecdotes aren't data, that a handful of people don't necessarily make a trend, and that the repetition of the word "production" between your anecdote and the phrase "production ready" is, at best, coincidental (or a deliberate—and as I see it, dishonest—attempt to reframe the debate).

        In January you complained about inappropriate use of quotemarks. I sincerely thought you would agree with the summary I put in quotemarks ("don't do nom, not needed, will take too long" -- quoting myself, not you). But when you objected I publicly apologized, respectfully, without caveat, and then shutup. Would you be willing to do the same for me? (Sans being quiet -- you told me I didn't need to quit posting, and besides, I enjoy your writing regardless of whether or not I agree.)

        My respect for you, Larry Wall, Perl, Perl 5, Perl 6, #perl6, and PerlMonks is part of what drives me to try especially hard to get communication here right. But when I consider what's going on in this thread, I feel sad and frustrated.

        In the specific case of Perl 6 being "production ready" it has reached a level of misunderstanding I find amazing. Some in this thread argue something to the effect that #perl6 should not worry about stability at all. I see their point. Others that until it's as stable as Perl 5, no serious user in her right mind would touch it. I see their point too.

        To recap, my position is that Perl 6 can't possibly get to "production ready" status without first attracting a growing stream of serious early adopters at least a year or two before it gets there, and right now Perl 6 doesn't have that so this is a big issue. (To be crystal clear, I don't mean reaching Perl 5 levels of quality. I see that taking the best part of a decade, and most probably involving Perl 5 and 6 merging back in to just plain Perl.)

        Please show me the specific things I have said, with context, that are leading you to think I was dishonestly suggesting something (if you wish, in private: raiph.mellor@gmail.com).

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://982547]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others perusing the Monastery: (8)
As of 2014-07-24 07:29 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (158 votes), past polls