There has been requests and talk of a production release for years now. Fancy titles released have come out monthly and quarterly for some time. At some point you have to say it simply isn't a good product or it is going to production how long are we going to hear excuses of my dog died past week and the production release is delayed for a year. Perl 6 at this point seems like a bad dream at best and there really isn't a need since moose and perl 5 have improved.
Sent from my iPhone Wendell Hatcher wendell_hatc...@comcast.net 303-520-7554 Blogsite: http://thoughtsofaperlprogrammer.typepad.com/blog On Jan 5, 2011, at 6:13 AM, "Anderson, Jim" <jim.ander...@bankofamerica.com> wrote: > Hear! Hear! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Carrera [mailto:dcarr...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 7:15 AM > To: Richard Hainsworth > Cc: perl6-us...@perl.org > Subject: Re: Production Release - was Re: Questions for Survey about Perl > > Although everything you said is technically true, I must point out > that without a definitive release, potential users will tend to avoid > the software. For people not involved in the process (i.e. 99.995% of > Perl users) it is impossible to know when the software is good enough > for use. You may talk about strange attractors and orbits, but I > haven't the faintest clue how big the "orbit" of either Perl 6 or > Rakudo is. Therefore, I cannot recommend it to other people, and I > will hesitate to use it on anything that is very important. > > Daniel. > > > On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Richard Hainsworth > <rich...@rusrating.ru> wrote: >> >>>>> So I'd change that to "after a production release of a Perl 6 compiler" >>>> >>> Out of curiosity (because I think it will illuminate some of the >>> difficulty >>> Rakudo devs have in declaring something to be a "production release"): >>> >>> - What constitues a "production release"? >>> - What was the first production release of Perl 4? >>> - What was the first production release of Perl 5? >>> - What was the first production release of Linux? >>> - At what point was each of the above declared a "production release"; >>> was it concurrent with the release, or some time afterwards? >>> >>> Pm >> >> Larry responded to a post of mine asking about when Perl6 would be finished >> - the post was about the time that Pugs was still being actively developed. >> He pointed to the difference between the waterfall model and the strange >> attractor model for software development, perl6 progress being measured >> using the strange attractor model. >> >> Many of the questions and answers about a 'production release' imply the >> waterfall model. The concept here is that some one 'in authority' sets >> criteria which define 'finished'. Once the software / language / project >> fulfils the criteria - the edge of the waterfall - it is 'finished'. This >> has the advantage that everyone knows when to break out the champaign and >> have a party. It has the disadvantage that criteria of 'finished' can rarely >> be written in advance because to do so requires precognition, or knowledge >> of the future. Is there any sophisticated piece of software that is >> 'perfect', has no bugs, is easy to use? Was MS Vista 'production' quality? >> Perl 5.0 was quickly replaced by Perl 5.004 (I think), which include >> references. >> >> The strange attractor model implies a process that is never ending, in that >> there will always be deviations from the solution 'orbit' or 'path'. >> However, there comes a time when for most normal purposes, the solution >> orbit will be so 'narrow' that the blips will be not be noticed for most >> situations. >> >> In this respect, qualitative statements such as 'when developers accept it' >> or 'providers such as ActiveState etc' bundle it are recognition of the >> strange attractor measure of progress of Perl6. >> >> Personally, I think that we are in sight of acceptance for Rakudo Star. This >> is an implementation of a subset of Perl6. I also believe that when Rakudo >> begins to implement Sets, Macros and deals with the problems posed by GUI, >> we will see further changes in the Perl6 specification. It is unlikely that >> such changes will 'break' Rakudo *. >> >> A question that would be useful to ask is: >> When will Rakudo Star be useful for some of your purposes? >> a) It is already useful; >> b) When running precompiled Rakudo * versions for a test suite of example >> programs is as fast as running Perl5 versions, on average. >> c) When running (from human readable text to final result) Rakudo * versions >> for a test suite of example programs is as fast as Perl5 versions, on >> average. >> d) When Rakudo * implements a larger subset of Perl6 and/or access >> well-written C/C++ libraries efficiently, presupposing (c). >> >> Another question would be what should be in the test suite of example >> programs? >> >> The example programs are not the test suite, which verifies consistency with >> the specification. The example programs should be designed - I suggest - to >> test speed and memory footprint. Ultimately, programmers are interested in >> solutions that are quick and use least hardware resources (the human >> resource of writing a simple and understandable program being the strongest >> part of Perl6, at least I think so). >> >> >> > > > > -- > No trees were destroyed in the generation of this email. However, a > large number of electrons were severely inconvenienced. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > This message w/attachments (message) is intended solely for the use of the > intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, > confidential or proprietary. If you are not an intended recipient, please > notify the sender, and then please delete and destroy all copies and > attachments, and be advised that any review or dissemination of, or the > taking of any action in reliance on, the information contained in or attached > to this message is prohibited. > Unless specifically indicated, this message is not an offer to sell or a > solicitation of any investment products or other financial product or > service, an official confirmation of any transaction, or an official > statement of Sender. Subject to applicable law, Sender may intercept, > monitor, review and retain e-communications (EC) traveling through its > networks/systems and may produce any such EC to regulators, law enforcement, > in litigation and as required by law. > The laws of the country of each sender/recipient may impact the handling of > EC, and EC may be archived, supervised and produced in countries other than > the country in which you are located. This message cannot be guaranteed to be > secure or free of errors or viruses. > > References to "Sender" are references to any subsidiary of Bank of America > Corporation. Securities and Insurance Products: * Are Not FDIC Insured * Are > Not Bank Guaranteed * May Lose Value * Are Not a Bank Deposit * Are Not a > Condition to Any Banking Service or Activity * Are Not Insured by Any Federal > Government Agency. Attachments that are part of this EC may have additional > important disclosures and disclaimers, which you should read. This message is > subject to terms available at the following link: > http://www.bankofamerica.com/emaildisclaimer. By messaging with Sender you > consent to the foregoing.
