Re: RFCs (Re: Ideas that need RFCs?)

[Steve Fink]

Jeremy Howard wrote:
> 
> > Steve Fink writes:
> > > And both those examples apply to the underpinnings. Ok, maybe I have an
> > > unusually broad definition of the word "underpinnings". Think "anything
> > > that can't be done with a pure perl module".
> >
> Say "anything that can't be done *fast*enough* with a pure perl module" and
> you're closer.

Right. What he said.

Or maybe add "cleanly enough" too. And "easily enough". Or maybe just
"anything that wouldn't be better done as a pure perl module." After
all, we're shooting for better than "easy things possible, hard things
barely possible."