Re^6: Does Perl Have a Business Plan?

[Propaganda.pm_rj]

No, it's not joke.

Then the "tragedy" statement applies.
I cannot argue with (shortened quote):

if ... would ... would ... would ... would ... could ..."

It is neither wrong nor right. It's not verifiable, and highly hypothetic (see quote). More hope than fact, actually. Sure, if all these would's and could's would be in place, you could hope that some early adopter would catch on.

Yes.

So what? Then of course you'd hope that some kind of bootstrap process comes into existence, and the incoming adopters start to be less and less "early", until we have a Perl6 hype and girls start tearing of their shirts if they see a guy wearing a Perl6 T-shirt. Yeah. Why not? Phantasies are not illegal.

Unfortunately my estimate of the situation (and of your estimate of the situation) differs significantly. You completely/elegantly ignored the ROI topic I pointed to. You know - even todays early adopters aren't what they used to be. Significant amounts of early adopters - I mean. Sure, in todays worldwide IT-crowd counting tens of millions (possibly more) you will find a few die-hards that can adopt almost anything. If you hope for that, then I agree. Yes, that can happen.

But try to be honest to yourself. Do you really expect, that from this early adoption would come the kick-starter application, and interest, and a wider audience and wider contribution possibly even self-sustaining? As I wrote above: more hope than fact.

Please don't get me wrong. I too see Perl6 as promising. However, at the current moment I do not see anything of relevance being done to offer at least some Perl6 ROI. Not even for early adopters. (please do not confuse early adopters with temporary tryout hackers)

However, in my humblest opinion, that situation would radically change, 180°, if there was a Perl5 to Perl6 converter. Here I agree with your 90% estimate. Maybe even 80%. If it could automatically convert 80% of the pure-perl CPAN modules to Perl6 ... BINGO! You would:

• Have proof, that Perl5 and Perl6 are entangled sister projects that benefit each other
• Perl6 would benefit (huge surge of resources)
• Perl5 would benefit (opened migration path)

Until then, Perl6 is - and I would like to quote Richard Foley here - "Basically an excercise in academic masturbation". And I quote Richard here, because I do agree with him. As me the perl hacker, and me the upper management guy.

Why is such a converter not being done? Because it's hard I'm being told. Sorry. Before such a thing is not "in place" I - as a manager - cannot take Perl6 seriously. However, IF such a thing is in place, I most certainly know, that I would authorize the migration of some in-company tools (not customer projects - I'm not that bold) to Perl6.

And allow me the corollary, that during the development of such a converter, Perl6 - the language - would gain a development boost, because now it would have at least some code being benchmarked with.

Sorry if anyone is insulted by anything I wrote - just trying to express my sincere opinion.

[BrowserUk]

You completely/elegantly ignored the ROI topic I pointed to.

Your link lead me to a blank 'Sign Up to see the Wonderful Goodies' page. I haven't stuck my hand in a lucky dip box since I was a kid.

Unfortunately my estimate of the situation (and of your estimate of the situation) differs significantly.

Yes. Does that make you automatically right?

If Perl6 is so obviously dead in the water, why are you bothering to attack it?

I would like to quote ...

Ah! Appeals to -- for all intents and purposes, random -- higher authority, the last chance saloon of unreasoned zealotry.

Do you quote him because he is right, or is he right because you quote him?

that situation would radically change, 180°, if there was a Perl5 to Perl6 converter.

And now finally to the agenda. But, are you promoting a converter you have written; or recruiting for the magic bullet you perceive?

If you ever unlock that door to your vision, we might find out.

In all likelihood this is just another 'I've a great idea and I've written a thesis and knocked up a web page to present it; now all I need are some donkeys to do the work' to raise my phfantastical vision to reality; but I'll keep an open mind for now.

If it could automatically convert 80% of the pure-perl CPAN modules to Perl6 ... BINGO!

Sorry, but I think you are wrong. Indeed, I think that perhaps the second worst thing that could happen to Perl6 is the creation of such a tool. Why?

• Because some large percentage of the Pure-perl modules are dross unworthy of persisting.

  Large numbers of the modules on CPAN are newbies first goes at writing modules; 90% boiler plate; 10% wasted effort.

  Ranging from: trivial OOified replications of; or ill-conceived "corrections" to; misunderstood built-in functionality.

  To: badly designed, or badly written, or clumsy interfaced, or theoretically pure but with horrible performance, or just plain broken. And sometimes all of those.

  Written as stand alone projects without the benefit of real world application, in order to gain experience, or simply to have a presence on CPAN to which they can point prospective employers/customers. Token gestures of 'contribution'.

• Because it would lead to the persistence of the whole never-mind-the-quality-feel-the-width ethos that pervades unknowing's view of CPAN today.

  There are probably less than 100 (certainly less than 500) vital, critical, modules on CPAN -- ie. those that fulfill 90% of the use statements seen in the wild. And most of them will have an XS component that would prevent automated conversion.

  And of those that are pure-Perl, the best, most used, most indispensable ones will make extensive use of all of the quirks and guru-tricks that at the same time, make Perl5 so powerful and productive; but also, so difficult for initiates and part-timers.

  For you magic converter to be able to port these, Perl6 would need to replicate all of the "bad behaviours" -- bugs-made-features; quirks and dark corners -- that are the reasons for both its existence and the desire to have it. And if Perl6 did that, it would be little better than Perl5 and lead to all the same problems.

• It would concentrate the efforts of the must-have-a-presence-on-CP6AN developers in exactly all the wrong places.

  A line for line conversion of Perl5 to Perl6 won't benefit from what makes Perl6 so desirable. Instead of looking at the requirements and then using the power and elegance of Perl6 to satisfy them in the best way it can; effort would be concentrated in finding boiler-plate replacements for Perl5 idioms and then applying them as widely as possible.

• It would encourage and facilitate the persistence of the scatter-gun approach to library design that is characteristic of the 90's approach to language library design in general and of CPAN in particular.

  The whole free-for-all for top-level name-spaces; and stick-it-in-wherever, uncoordinated approach to getting-it-out-there. A first-come longest-lived and highest profile namespace landgrab, with a total lack of control over either logical structure or quality.

  Step back and take a look at the way library design has evolved in other languages. Java and C++ are good starting points. Look at the STL of the C++98 and the STD::* classes of C++11. The wide, deep, meandering of the former and the concentrated, coordinated, minimalism of the latter.

  To succeed, Perl6 needs CP6AN to be designed, coordinated and controlled.

• Automatically generated/converted code is crap.

  If you start with bad code prior to conversion, you'll end up with worse code after it.

  The Perl6 core libraries need to be designed to the strengths of Perl6; and written using the best of Perl6 idioms. Anything less will serve as a bad reference for new authors and reflect badly on Perl6 as a whole.

Logic dictates that if the first examples of Perl6 -- its libraries -- that people encounter are bad examples; then that is what they will write. And that would be the final nail in the coffin that has been sat, ready & waiting in the corner for a very long time.

[Propaganda.pm_rj]

test (preview works, create gives a "Tough beans"-permission denied) Ah... so my answer is too long... ROFL. But updating works.

Your link lead me to a blank 'Sign Up to see the Wonderful Goodies' page.

The ROI link should work now. It hasn't also disapeared from the original document. Sorry for the glitch. And it's not about signing up for goodies, it's just that not everything that is to be published on the page is published immediately. You know - we're trying to master a Perl-based Wiki there. We're new to it and it has this inherent Perl software ergonomy charm. ;-) Even if you tried to sign up, it wouldn't happen automatically. You would have to apply for Propaganda.pm membership.

Yes. Does that make you automatically right?

Of course not. I was merely stating that there is a controversy. But now - after your answer. Yes, I think I'm right. Your view on the matter seems fairly restricted.

If Perl6 is so obviously dead in the water, why are you bothering to attack it?

Ah. You see ghosts. I didn't say Perl6 was dead in the water, nor was I attacking it. I said, I see potential and I also said, that the hope "if we had Perl6 all marketing it would be a childs play" was naive because... (see my post). So if there was something I attacked, it was the naivety about the concept of technology adoption in your post. If that represents the consensus among Perl6 developers (don't know), then Perl6 has still potential, but will not succeed.

Ah! Appeals to -- for all intents and purposes, random -- higher authority, the last chance saloon of unreasoned zealotry. Do you quote him because he is right, or is he right because you quote him?

I'm not entirely sure if RF is "higher authority" and I actually feel being accused of zealotry as a compliment. Don't feel that way, and if I appear to core Perl folks as such... wow. Thanks. Because we both are civilized people, I think it is only fair if you call me an unreasoned zealot while I call you a naive marketing anti-talent. Maybe this allows us to speak on one level and return to the facts again. Yes?

In all likelihood this is just another 'I've a great idea and I've written a thesis and knocked up a web page to present it; now all I need are some donkeys to do the work' to raise my phfantastical vision to reality; but I'll keep an open mind for now.

Oh. I didn't know these things happen that often in the Perl community. And no, unfortunately I even haven't written a thesis (about this). Yes, a "web page" has been knocked up, but not for this particular topic. But on on this web page we will most certainly talk about "knocking up" "Perl propagating" web pages in Wordpress or using mailman, the CPAN quality fiasco or whatever. Different story.

And it's not "I", it's the Propaganda.pm team. If anyone there has objections to this "zealotry" - as you say - he/she (yes, we're a mixed bunch you know) is invited to object. The Perl5->Perl6 converter is nothing but a small step (see 3.1.2.3) and totally unimportant now (compared to other things). It's just by a factor of one thousand more important than other things being done in Perl6 right now, so I thought I could mention it. Let's see:

Sorry, but I think you are wrong. Indeed, I think that perhaps the second worst thing that could happen to Perl6 is the creation of such a tool. Why?

:-) Of course, the most important thing for me is the second worst thing to you. Therefore anti-talent. You see? No? Aren't you aware how technic-centric your arguments are? How limited that view is? You really think it is the developer, the early adopter who is responsible for the adoption of a new technology? Oh man... Hint: Have a look how new programming languages like Go or Dart are being prepared for adoption. And LEARN for gods sake! Because even in the technical domain, your arguments are void. But OTOH I see some potential for agreement here:

Because some large percentage of the Pure-perl modules are dross unworthy of persisting. Large numbers of the modules on CPAN are newbies first goes at writing modules; 90% boiler plate; 10% wasted effort.

YES! I agree! We should perhaps try to find a quantitative estimate to "large percentage", but in general: You are right. CPAN quality is to some large percentage ... well, just what you said. I'm somewhat surprised about that harsh judgement, because that's what I say, while I keep hearing ... "but we have CPAN". Ok, so CPAN having cruft/bad modules is your 1st argument against a converter. Ok. We remember that.

Your second argument is, that those modules that are not sh*t, cannot be converted or the necessities in the Perl6 feature set for their successful conversion would drag the clean and orthogonal (sic!) design of Perl6 into the mud. In that argument you speak of something between 100 to 500 relevant modules. I would kill, to get this list. So better prevent death toll and provide that list. Phalanx anyone?

Your third argument is, that - even if such a conversion took (successfully) place - the result would be bad. And even improving it wouldn't show/let play the "whole Perl6 glory", because these would be only patches without some global concept.

Your fourth argument is tackling the CPAN problem with namespace squatting and then - 5th - you basically state that generated/converted code is crap.

Starting with your 5th argument: Hurry, Cambridge UK has next 2 days a nice conference about code generation. Maybe there's something to learn. As every (byte)compiler generates code, by your definition, ALL code on this planet is crap. Certain metrics applied, you are right. Can you imagine that in the 90ies, a very competent m68k Assembly/C guru told me about his observation, how the GCC already at that time, made surprisingly efficient machine code (using surprising register overflows) an assembly programmer probably wouldn't have thought of?

Are you aware of the situation, where CPython was much faster than PyPy and today, thanks to the JIT compiler in PyPy it can run simple physics simulations by a factor of 20 to 25 faster? Oh! You didn't mean "machine/byte code" when you talked about code generation? Ok, then please state so next time. Never mind. You are wrong on any account regarding code generation. Yes, the terror of the programmer. Machines being able to generate better code than the programmers. Out of what? Out of more abstract concepts than just source code. Or out of other source code. Yes, that is called a converter. If I were you, I wouldn't reference the 90ies that often, because at some occasion one could get the impression that's where you got stuck.

As the 4th argument, namespace litter. YES! That is a problem. With CPAN. YES! Do not let us do this with a CPAN6 too! YES! Shove all converted code to P5P6 namespace - or whatever. Where it can live with it's stigma of 2nd class code. Until there is something better in the shiny orthogonal 1st class CPAN6 world. But at least THERE WILL be something to bootstrap with. Same as C++11 was not the first thing that hit us.

Your 3rd argument basically states, that refactoring with Perl6 is impossible. Maybe it's even impossible with Perl5. Hey - maybe we should even scrap evolution. You know - that funny thing Charles Darwin babbled about. I mean evolution as optimization effort can only find a local maximum, not the global one. Clearly not the Perl6 way. We want the global maximum. From the start. Creationists unite (and bring us Perl6)! If there was something to attack on Perl6 it would be this (naive) "make it right from the start" approach/mindset.

Your 2nd argument states such a converter cannot exist. Or - if it would exist - Perl6 would get polluted. Uh! Where I see real-world-benchmarking (features, not speed), you see pollution. So stay in your hygiene chamber. Do not let the bad real-world in. Sweet dreams - no? And basically by that argument you state, that Perl6 is not as powerful as Perl5 is. You just do not want to admit that, so you cover this up in "Perl6 would get polluted if it had to emulate all the Perl5 glitches". Yeah - right.

So what remains, is agreement on argument 1. CPAN is a pile of cruft. I still do not see how this invalidates a P5toP6 converter. Also a partial agreement on argument 4, where I think is a very easy and evident solution. What I DO see, is how you - again - evaded my argument of entanglement between Perl5 and Perl6. It seems we're thinking in completely different categories. Unfortunately, you cannot get a garage into a car. I understand all your arguments perfectly. And they show a very narrow, limited view of the IT-world. Therefore it is me who is in duty and responsible for extending that view.

If you ever unlock that door to your vision, we might find out.

First, please try to speak for yourself, or identify the group you refer to with "we". Even then, these things are not about democracy or majorities. If you find a group of 100 "we"'s who say "No, we ain't doin' no stinkin' converter" and if I find a group of 5 dedicated people who "yep - we do it" and then do it - the smaller group decides. Anyway, let's stick to this topic. If we manage to clarify some things here, we may move to the even bigger picture at some later time.

Let's think about the hypothetical (project) manager A in company X. Let's even assume, Propaganda.pm has helped to rectify the shitty image of Perl - against all odds and "we"'s - to the extent, A is part of a growing group of managers worldwide who at least are considering the use of Perl for some next project. Let's shift a little bit into the future and assume we have that situation now. Question: would the existence of a Perl5->Perl6 converter help, hurt or just not matter for the decision to make that project in Perl5? It would not hurt, except in the case, where the decision would be more radical i.e. to deploy Perl6 directly because one could eventually augment with converted Perl5 "legacy". So either Perl5 or Perl6 would benefit - depending on the mind boggling decision process of said manager. q.e.d.

Let's not think aout the developer. Because most of the time it is NOT the developer who decides which technology to adopt. Most of the time this decision is made based on what some developers say, what some managers think (black magic there) and if the decision is made, developers are told what to use or simply new developers are acquired to do so. If your experience is different, congrats or condolence. Pick one.

Again - a Perl5toPerl6 converter is not the most important thing for Perl right now. It is, however, right now the most important thing for Perl6, but if you disagree, I can live with that. I'm sure you can equally well live with the knowledge that there is at least one guy shaking head over the Perl6 "concepts" you've presented so far.

The most important thing right now, is to improve the Perl image. OUT THERE. Not here in the "echo chamber". So that's what I will try to contribute to. Having well-respected people within the Perl community standing totally in the way comes only as a surprise, explains perfectly the current situation Perl is in, but will in the long run have no effect. Fortunately.

[BrowserUk]

As every (byte)compiler generates code, by your definition, ALL code on this planet is crap. Certain metrics applied, you are right. Can you imagine that in the 90ies, a very competent m68k Assembly/C guru told me about his observation, how the GCC already at that time, made surprisingly efficient machine code (using surprising register overflows) an assembly programmer probably wouldn't have thought of?

Chalk and cheese.

Yes. Modern compiler technology -- include JIT variants -- can produce some very efficient machine code. But a big part of why they can do so is because what they produce does not have to be read, understood or maintained by human beings. If you doubt this, spark up gcc or MSVC on a piece of moderately complex source code and enable /E /Ox /FAs (or the gcc equivalent) and try and relate the resultant optimised assembler back to the C sourcecode.

And if you find yourself thinking "That's not so bad!", then do the same thing with a piece of moderately complex C++ code.

The basic problem is that human beings can only juggle 4/7/8/? things in their short term memory at a time, but compilers can remember everything for as long as they need to.

Machine generated source code is crap

Having had to try and understand and maintain the output of three different sourcecode to sourcecode converters in my career -- albeit in the late 80's and the 90s -- I urge you to both canvass opinion of those with experience of them; and take a look around at the output of tools that generate source code. Take a look at the output from tools like FrontPage and Dreamweaver and even GUI click&paste IDEs like MSVC. The source code output is almost impossible to follow.

With all of those, maintenance *must* be done on the pre-translated input, not the output, otherwise changes are discarded, or the two diverge.

So, unless it is your intention that maintenance continue to be performed on the pre-converted perl5 code -- hopefully not; shipping Perl6 libraries in P5 and making every user redo the conversion is a complete non-starter -- then human beings are going to have to deal with the post-conversion Perl6 code. And that will inevitably be crap.

Why

The very things that make computers so good at producing optimised machine code are what make them so bad at producing readable, understandable and maintainable source code. Take a look at some raw beginners Perl code -- there are good (bad) examples all over this site. Note the lack of structure; confusing ordering; bad naming of variables and functions; and the general lack of coherent flow of the code.

Proof.

Now imagine computer generated variable names; functions/ & methods laid out according to some programmed ordering -- alphanumerically or worse -- rather than logically grouped according to human expectations; function bodies laid out with all the variables declared up front rather than in-line; statements ordered according to time-line requirements rather than human expectations of logical flow; long lines wrapped at arbitrary (numerically calculated) points rather than the structural requirements of the conditions or events they contain; multi-statement chunks of functionality ordered by how they come off a push-down queue, rather than logical flow as a human being might construct it.

What you end up with is working code that is not understandable or maintainable by human minds. And from experience I can tell you that is a disaster for both productivity and ongoing development for in-house-only projects. For widely disseminated libraries that will serve as examples to human beings trying to either evaluate or learn a new programming language it would be much worse!.

Re-stated

So I'll restate my opinion in more specific terms: machine generated source code intended for human consumption, understanding and maintenance -- as opposed to machine-read and executed, and never maintained machine code -- is not yet within the capabilities of programming to make a descent fist of. This is not due to any constraint that can be solved by throwing CPU cycles or clever algorithms at; because it comes back to our continuing inability to understand how the human brain works.

It is still impossible to categorise what lifts code from 'functionally complete' to 'intuitively good', much less great. Whilst we can teach new programmers to write the former; we have no way to teach them how to produce the latter. We (science) still have no handle on what forces and and processes allow the human brain to innovate. To make that leap from the step-by-step following of the recipe, to seeing the better, clearer, 'new' solution. And if we cannot categorise it; we cannot algorise it.

Computers can only do what they have been programmed to do; they cannot invent or innovate.

The bottom line is that your converter will produce perl5 idioms in Perl6 code. You may think it might be possible for the converter developers to program in boiler-plate Perl6 replacements for Perl5 idioms such that you will end up with half-descent Perl6 code; but it will not happen. At best, any such substitutions will only be possible at the individual statement level.

If you doubt this, consider the task of trying to convert the perl5 code snippets that implement (say) matrix multiplication -- as written by a dozen different Perl5 programmers -- to Perl6 using the hyper-operator syntax.

Try it out.

Ask the monks here, or your colleagues, to write a simple Perl5 function that takes references to two, 2D arrays and returns a reference to a third 2D array that is the product of the inputs. Then, when you get back their code, sit down and consider what would be involved in trying to program your converter to recognise all those disparate versions -- some using nested for loops; some map; some while; and the various combinations of those and more.

That is the level of task (and just one of many) that you would need to be able to solve in order for your converter/translator to be able to produce good Perl6 code. It is a task that is more complex than writing a Perl6 compiler from scratch and much harder than writing a VMI to run it on.

It isn't going to happen any time soon. It would (will?) be just another side project that will go nowhere and ultimately be a waste of resources that would be better served by assisting the Perl6 team getting a Perl6 compiler & VM working.

Sorry, but that is my conclusion. (Note: What you and others do with your time is none of my business.)

---

The above was meant to be the end; but I simply cannot bring myself to let this go:

Aren't you aware how technic-centric your arguments are? How limited that view is? You really think it is the developer, the early adopter who is responsible for the adoption of a new technology? Oh man... Hint: Have a look how new programming languages like Go or Dart are being prepared for adoption. And LEARN for gods sake!

Sorry, but yes. It *IS* technicians that drive the adoption of programming languages.

Fanbois, Mommas&Pappas and Silver Surfers, have no interest in the languages in which the code that: feeds their TwitBook addictions; delivers their offspring's emails, baby/holiday snaps; or their on-demand TV programs; is written in. So marketeering to them is a bust.

And it isn't business management that drives the adoption of new languages. At least not until there is sufficient eveidence (in the business press and newsfeeds) that other managers and companies have already made the leap and run with if for long enough to make it a 'safe bet'. Managers resist risk -- and that means change -- at all costs -- until forced by weight of wider opinion, or their relative decline in revenue, market share or share price -- to accept the risk is manageable or impossible to avoid

Technicians drive early adoptions

It is technicians -- programmers -- that drive the early adoption of new programming languages -- often through stealth. Whilst in the later stages, programmers are drawn to new languages by weight of numbers -- what's hot right now -- in order for that to becomes relevant, you need to achieve that weight on numbers. And that means someone (and many someones) have to be first, and that is driven entirely by technical issues and innovations.

Comparative study

And yes. I have GO and Dart on my machine. I've played fairly extensively with the former, but it has fallen into disuse because it cannot do dynamically link modules (.dll/.so) and according to my conversation with one of the lead developers, it never will. Its a plan9 cultural thing.

I've only just started looking at Dart; and so far I fail to see anything there that leads me to believe that it is a major step forward over any of half a dozen existing languages. I'm still open to seeing where it will go, but I'm not rushing into making great efforts at this stage.

But, if GO is so good, why do they need Dart? And if Dart is so much better; how long will GO persist?

But, more worryingly, will either or both of them make it through next year's Google spring clean? Or the year after that? Belts are tightened, the competition is getting better, and the revenue growth from the Ompa Loompa's money machine -- on-line advertising -- is beginning to slow as competitors are beginning to catch up and purchasers are beginning to question their ROI. Google have been and continue to be ruthless in pruning their experimental projects; even those that have acquired a large, and often vociferous public following. (The latest casualty if there long running and widely used Reader service)

Basis for my conclusions.

So yes, I'm more than just aware of developments in new programming languages, I have been actively following along, acquiring, installing and testing them for the last 10 years or so. It is one of if not my main interest and I've been pursuing it vigorously expending a large percentage of my time on exactly that.

I've drawn three conclusions from my past 10+ years of investigating computer languages:

• There are a lot of new programming languages popping into existence every year -- 10 or more and the rate is increasing by my estimation -- but of those, fewer than 1 a year will ever achieve anything more than a tiny percentage of 'the market'.

  And even those that do so may only do so for a very short ( < 5 years) period of time before falling away back into obscurity. Maintained or not.

• No new language will ever gain more than a sub percentage point of the market unless it has a 'killer application'.

  Ie. Some usage that is unsatisfied by other existing languages. And that usage has to be high-level, with a low-learning curve and (greatly) increased productivity than anything else available.

  My example is Ruby-on-Rails.

• Evolution always trumps revolution where programming (languages) is concerned.

  C++, Java, EMCA/Javascript, C, COBOL & FORTRAN are not going away any time soon. They will continue to evolve and acquire new skills and modes of use; and they will continue to dominate the numbers game in perpetuity.

  This is not because they are perfect; but because it is far easier to get new facilities and paradigms into the world's code bases by getting 1% of the 50% of programmers already using C++, than it is to get the same number to switch to a new language that provides those same facilities and paradigms; even if they do it far better.

  Hence, lambas functions and expressions will see far more use by their inclusion into C++11, than they ever have or ever will through all of the FP languages -- Clean, Curry, Haskell, Miranda, Erlang, F#, Lisp, ML, OCaml, Q, Pure, Scala et al. -- combined.

  It is simple math: If only 2% of C++ programmers (which represent say 50% of all programmers), use them, that is still more than the sum of 100% of 50 languages that each only used by 0.1% of all programmers. (Don't take those numbers literally; they are made up for the example, but are not orders of magnitude out; which they would need to be to invalidate the argument.)

My point above is that whilst I am just one man looking from just one POV, my earlier response to you was not made up in the spot, but was the product of wide reading, extensive hands-on evaluation and a great deal of experienced thought over many years.

Whilst I make no claim for my conclusions being definitive, know that they are neither casually drawn, nor a simple regurgitation of those of others. I have no axe to grind nor anything to gain or lose from anything you do. Do not dismiss them, nor adopt them, lightly. Just factor them into your thinking -- or not -- when reaching your own.

Good luck.

s not so bad!h3

[Anonymous Monk]

You completely/elegantly ignored the ROI topic I pointed to.

Twas not so hard. The linked page requires login and password.

[Propaganda.pm_rj]

Uh! You are right. Sorry for that. Article is published now.

[BrowserUk]

You are right. Sorry for that. Article is published now.

Hm. But the link to it seems to have disappeared?

Computers are making people easier to use everyday