Talk:Perl 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of Perl 6.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Perl 6 was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: September 22, 2006
Archive
Archives

Archive 2005-2006

Contents

[edit] Perl 6 links

Hi. I maintain Perl 6 and Parrot links. Is it usefull for exernal links? --mj41 21:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, but if you get that added to dmoz, then adding a link to dmoz here would be acceptable. Please see WP:NOT for further information. -Harmil 13:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT doesn't apply to adding a single link. Furthermore, there are links to criticism in that list of links that should be used in this article. Again I should emphasize that their correctness is irrelevant as per NPOV policy. -71.166.153.191 06:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal comments

I just noticed the good article initiative. The article doesn't make clear the original scope of dissatisfaction with Perl 5 that justified, what, a seven-years-and-counting revision cycle. Nor is it clear reading the synopsis of language changes which of these changes were considered vital to the goals of the project, nor which of these changes most impacted the length of the project. Did the original warts run so deep it has taken seven years to remove them? The one point where that struck me as having potentially consumed a large quantity of intellectual work was the further generalization of regular expressions to regexes. Surely it wouldn't have taken seven years to accomplish sigil invariance. Perhaps the closures were also difficult, or just the interaction of so many changes. Nor does the article address the issue about why all these ambitious changes have been pursued ensemble, without a formal halfway-there release, which many projects of this scope would attempt to achieve. I'm just saying that the nature of the ambition behind the project doesn't come across in a way you can take home after reading it. It's a bit like explaining in an article about the space program that the life support and navigation systems, etc. were all challenging to achieve, without making it clear how much that was complicated by the payload restriction dictated by the Saturn V launch vehicle. In other respects, I felt this article reads quite well. MaxEnt 03:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Try Constraints and Software Development ( chromatic, oreillynet.com blog, 16.8.2007) and others from Perl 6 and Parrot links. --mj41 20:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Considered vaporware" citation

Someone tagged the sentence "Perl 6 has been under development for over seven years, prompting some commentators to suggest that Perl 6 may be vaporware" with {{who}} despite the fact that googling [perl-6 vaporware] reveals thousands of hits on all sorts of different online venues. Obviously a lot of people do consider Perl 6 vaporware. But how does one turn that into a citation by Wikipedia? Is there even any need to provide citation for things that can be verified by anyone with half their wits in 5 seconds?
—Aristotle (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That search contains references to Wikipedia and all its mirrors. A search that excludes Wikipedia and its mirrors results in only 51 hits, not thousands. Also, please don't toss around phrases like "can be verified by anyone with half their wits", especially given that your analysis hasn't been sufficiently rigorous. Mindmatrix 16:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, conducting the same search a few moments later yields 1230 hits (many duplicates of only a few articles, or links to those articles). My point is still valid though - most searches should be conducted to exclude Wikipedia to find relevant external resources. Mindmatrix 16:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Conceded, but still, that’s merely an exact search for the keywords “Perl 6” and “vaporware”. It does not include the many other ways to express the exact same sentiment without using that word. F.ex., one of Guido’s maxims for the Python3000 effort was “Not Perl 6”, by which he meant “keep a tight grip on scope to avoid an explosion in time-till-completion.” That’s just one example of the ways in which people say “it’s taking forever and might never even finish”, AKA vaporware. Chromatic alone has probably written some two dozen substantial rants about people griping that Perl 6 isn’t done yet. There is no doubt that this sentiment is widely shared, even if it’s not something for which you can point to one easy single citation. If anyone has suggestions about how to deal with that {{who}} sensibly (which might mean simply deleting it), I’m all ears.
—Aristotle (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Probably the best way would be pick two or three representative citations and use those. —Cryptic 21:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Py3k

It seems unfair to the merged Py3k article that this article is allowed to be seperate from the main Perl article. I do not know the guidelines, but this discrepancy became apparent to me as the casual reader. Sorry, should I raise old issues here. --129.241.135.159 (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)