Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Your skill will accomplish
what the force of many cannot
 
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 scrutinizing the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-07-12 00:21 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    When choosing user names for websites, I prefer to use:








    Results (237 votes), past polls