Re^3: Four Legs Good, Five Legs Bad

[raiph]

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: [e-mail]).

[chromatic]

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.

[raiph]

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.

[chromatic]

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.