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).
| [reply] |
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).
| [reply] |
Please show me the specific things I have said, with context, that are leading you to think I was dishonestly suggesting something...
From Re^2: Perl 6: Managing breakages across Rakudo versions:
There are already Rakudo users and some are using it in production settings....
... to me it's obvious why some folk have begun to deploy Perl 6 in production settings....
From Re^4: Perl 6: Managing breakages across Rakudo versions (where the "untrue negative stuff" you mention seems to be "I think you are referring to IRC bots and Rosetta code wiki submitters, which in case their use cases hardly count for production settings. Rakudo doesn't have serious users.":
... a big part of the reason Perl 6 has so few users is that it has a bad reputation that is reinforced by folk such as yourself who are not actually closely following the project yet choose to write untrue negative stuff about the project as if it were fact.
From Re^8: Hockey Sticks, where I'm not sure what "several" means:
Several users have P6 solutions currently in use in production settings; how could they if it's not usable?
I don't claim that your misleading is deliberate, but I think you've overstated your position in these quotes.
| [reply] |
