|
Re^8: Will Perl 6 Replace Perl 5?
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Sep 23, 2010 at 16:45 UTC
|
How many times can I explain the intentions of the developers? We release a new version of our software every month. It gets better every month. When it passes the complete specification test suite, we'll say so. We can't tell you if it meets your needs because we don't know the specifics of your needs.
Quibbling over whether it's "done" or "stable" or "alpha" or "complete" or "vaporware" or "useful" is silly.
Specific questions get specific answers (but specific questions about "What does your version number mean?" get the specific answer "The larger the number, the more recent the release.")
| [reply] |
|
|
We can't tell you if it meets your needs because we don't know the specifics of your needs.
I suspect that for a lot of people the needs will be the same ones that make them use Perl 5, e.g. speed, reliability, good documentation, libraries etc ...
| [reply] |
|
|
Everyone wants those things, like everyone wants a good job, a nice house, freedom, and pie.
My business needs specific things, like the ability to parse PseudoPOD documents to emit XHTML or LaTeX. I don't care if Perl 6 lacks an ODBC driver or an OpenID library because I don't need them. Rakudo doesn't have to be as fast as Perl 6 for the kinds of work I use it for either; it has to be able to process a novel-length book in a minute. If you're doing exchange trading, your speed goal may be very different.
That's what I mean by "specifics".
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
I'd be happy to hear that the specification test suite was complete. Or even, completable. Because that would mean the specification was complete. Maybe by Christmas ...
Then at least be happy that we understand the difference between convergence and divergence. Also consider being happy that we think we understand that trying to horse the fish into the boat often results in divergence rather than convergence if it over-stresses your leader. We have to play the fish so that it does not overtax the equipment.
We see that the fish is getting tired already. When it's time for the net, it'll be obvious.
And the fact of the matter is that the pace of spec changes is slowing down. These days most of the substantive spec changes are a direct result of observing how various implementations are attempting to nail down the loose flounders so they don't flop around the boat quite so much.
Of course, until "Christmas" comes, people will continue to carp...
And of course, they will continue to carp afterwards too. Some people are just never happy unless they have something to be unhappy about.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but how stable is the specification? How far along Rakudo is isn't that important (at least to me) as the language itself is. It's the language that provides the real long-term stability, not the implementation. For outsiders, it's not obvious how far along the specification is. I assume many parts are fleshed out and really well thought through, while others haven't been touched yet because the implementations aren't there yet and people still need to play around with it. But I can't know what sections are where. So even if I evaluate Rakudo for my use-case today, it doesn't say anything about what will be tomorrow. And it's the tomorrow people are interested in.
And I'm not quibbling over any of those terms. Also, again, I'm not interested in the version numbers.
By the way, you're coming across as quite aggressive. I don't know if that's intentional or not. But just to be clear: I don't (yet) care about Perl 6. At least not from a usage point-of-view. I'd be happy if I had more time for version 5 in fact. So I'm not trying to pressure you into an answer. I just feel that the discussion about version numbers has taken over the discussions about the actual questions that people have.
Ordinary morality is for ordinary people. -- Aleister Crowley
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
