Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Welcome to the Monastery
 
PerlMonks  

Re^4: Amicable divorce (The Camel Paradox)

by ribasushi (Pilgrim)
on Jul 06, 2020 at 11:27 UTC ( #11118964=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^3: Amicable divorce (The Camel Paradox)
in thread Amicable divorce

Linux distributions might abandon system Perl?
I suspect this is not a rhetorical question. The answer is: not only "might": this is already happening at dizzying speed. The current promise to gentrify your oneliners at all costs does not help reverse that trend.
  • Comment on Re^4: Amicable divorce (The Camel Paradox)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Amicable divorce (The Camel Paradox)
by LanX (Cardinal) on Jul 06, 2020 at 11:42 UTC
    > promise to gentrify your oneliners at all costs

    Jesus! OO

    Perl started as bash on steroids, that's our home base.

    Cutting a tree's roots because you live up in the crown is not the cleverest idea. That's where the seed can survive for decades.

    Guys, just create master pragmas and alias different bin/p_whatever to it and everybody is happy.

    Creating a bad copy of python will hardly work, that's like cutting down the hump of a Camel to make it race better against a horse.

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
    Wikisyntax for the Monastery

Re^5: Amicable divorce (The Camel Paradox)
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Jul 06, 2020 at 16:49 UTC
    The current promise to gentrify your oneliners at all costs...

    ... is a very dishonest reading of that message, one which ignores the rest of the thread which pushes back against it.

    Which is it? Is it already happening at dizzying speed, or is this just a discussion where one person has an idea and other people disagree?

      > ... the rest of the thread which pushes back against it ... just a discussion where one person has an idea and other people disagree?
      chromatic, you are lying and misdirecting. Please stop.
        It's really bothering me that key players of the community are resorting to more and more vitriol in the discussion. (including <update: names deleted> to name a few)

        Why isn't it possible to create a process where

        • interest groups are identified
        • a common strategy is outlined
        • RFCs are formulated with a test suite
        • a quality management looks over proof of concept and the implementation

        I always thought that my lack of understanding of P5P discussions is due to my limited knowledge.

        But I'm certain now that there is a serious and frustrating communication problem which needs to be resolved politically.

        And "politically" means a discussion and decision process which is transparent, reliable and efficient.

        Probably with mediators channeling the diplomacy and questioning the terminology.

        Update

        I'm totally pro dispute just in a scientific way, i.e sober and non emotional.

        Cheers Rolf
        (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
        Wikisyntax for the Monastery

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://11118964]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others romping around the Monastery: (3)
As of 2020-10-31 05:24 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    My favourite web site is:












    Results (286 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?