Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
The stupid question is the question not asked
 
PerlMonks  

Re^4: Four Legs Good, Five Legs Bad

by chromatic (Archbishop)
on Jul 20, 2012 at 00:52 UTC ( #982733=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^3: Four Legs Good, Five Legs Bad
in thread Perl 6: Managing breakages across Rakudo Star versions

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.


Comment on Re^4: Four Legs Good, Five Legs Bad
Re^5: Four Legs Good, Five Legs Bad
by raiph (Friar) on Jul 20, 2012 at 08:36 UTC
    There are already Rakudo users and some are using it in production settings

    The AM had said, and I had then quoted, "if this is not supposed to be a production release then why even bother" {managing breakages across Rakudo versions}. Would you label or characterize a recent release as a "production release"? I wouldn't. More to the point, the team hasn't.

    In an attempt to help the AM see why I support Patrick's position about caring even though it isn't a "production release", I suggested they think about it from Patrick's point of view. One of several factors that cumulatively all but compel him to care about breakages is that he has actual users (and indeed this could imo be sufficient reason regardless of whether or not anyone would characterize their setup as a production setting).

    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."

    Ah. No. That connection never occurred to me. The AM had asserted "I think xxx", with which assertion I have little quibble, and that Larry's valiant effort at RC, and bot code, don't count as use in a production setting, with which I have no quibble at all. The assertions to which I was referring were the ones I quoted.

    Several users have P6 solutions currently in use in production settings; how could they if it's not usable?

    Indeed. This was another AM: "I seriously doubt if the current path will lead to anything usable in coming years either." I've encountered folk who have heard of Perl 6 and thought work on it had stopped. While I'm willing to entertain debate on just how usable and useful Rakudo Star is, if I see what sounds to me like negative hyperbole that feeds the basic misconception that it is vaporware, I am inclined to contest it, especially here on PerlMonks.

    I think and hope we're much more in agreement about the many issues around Perl 5 and 6 than appearances suggest. I believe you like Perl 6, but seek to ensure that it is minimally distracting for Perl 5 activity until it is sufficiently mature to warrant renewed consideration. I want the same thing. I think it warrants renewed attention right now, so I'm posting tidbits I think might be helpful and intend to continue doing so. I dream of a day when Perl 5 and 6 are both seen by the broader tech community as very positive elements of an expanding Perl universe. I hope and trust you do too.

      I believe you like Perl 6, but seek to ensure that it is minimally distracting for Perl 5 activity until it is sufficiently mature to warrant renewed consideration.

      Perhaps you and I would get along better if you'd stop inventing conspiracies. Telling other people what they think (especially when you're wrong) seems like an ineffective marketing strategy.

        I'm not inventing conspiracies. I didn't intend to tell you or anyone else what they think, nor do I think I did so. For example, "I believe you ..." asserts what I'm believing, not you. While I of course believe what I believe, I'm not claiming to be omniscient.

        Your comment suggests to me that something in the belief I expressed is wrong. I'm pretty confident you still like Perl 6, that you feel you were let down by the Rakudo team, and that you want to see them do better. Hopefully that's accurate, but please remember that it's just my belief, and confidence is not an assertion of truth.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://982733]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others about the Monastery: (14)
As of 2014-07-23 06:55 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (135 votes), past polls