Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2010
Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> writes: > Caveats follow > […] > A 50% rise in activity, at a 200% rise in cost. Ack. From the discussion it indeed became very clear that the topic is indeed a tough one. Allow me to introduce more questions I'm meditating about without coming to a solution. I'm trying to evaluate the other way around: companies do stuff *for* Perl. So: - Why do companies invest effort into other languages? - Why is it more difficult for a company's employee to contribute to Perl than to, say Java? - Or what makes companies invest into Perl but not talk about it? IMHO it's much about “business-cases”, but - Why is Java a business-case for so many but not Perl? Even non-mainstream languages get attention: - Why does Intel care for Haskell parallelism but not for Perl? - What is Perl's business case? (Its hidden omnipresence isn't enough, obviously.) I don't think it's about hacking the Core. Other compilers are also non-trivial. And there is lot of work possible before hacking the core. Analyzing, debugging, benchmarking, sponsoring hardware, CPAN interfaces to proprietary products, XS wrappers. Kind regards, Steffen -- Steffen Schwigon <ss5@renormalist.net> Dresden Perl Mongers <http://dresden-pm.org/>Thread Previous | Thread Next