In Re^11: No, "We" Don't Have to Do Anything, an Anonymous Monk wrote:

Is there a conspiracy to prevent Perl 5 from being made simple and robust? What's wrong with finishing the Perl 5 compiler? Ten years ago, there was "undump()", then there was "perlcc", and now both are abandoned. What's wrong with making the B series of modules non-alphaware? What's wrong with making perltidy actually robust enought that we know that nothing has changed. Where's the pressing need to add more functional toys (and the acompanied instability that more features always bring) to the language, instead of solving all the pressing, real world problems that Perl faces?

I point out again, that the source code is still available, that subscribing to p5p is free, and that I can't recall a single good idea accompanied by working code turned away in the past five years I've read the mailing list.

Perhaps like Perl 6 there aren't enough people actually contributing to get everything done.

How can the Perl 5 porters correct this? Should TPF put up bounties (look at the projects accepted for last year's Summer of Code project)? Should someone (who?) stop fixing bugs or running mailing lists to concentrate on some laundry list of features? Should no one be able a pumpking without the ability to do the job on a full-time basis? Should there be some vote among the users of Perl as to which features are important in a release?

Or is it even a problem?