Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2000
Martyn Pearce writes: > | I never suggested that backwards compatibility be sacrificed. I suggest > | that the code should eventually be fixed. MajorDomo is one of those tools > | that hasn't been touched in years (unless I'm wrong here), and NEEDS > | some clean up. > > Hm, I'm missing some logic here: > > 1) MajorDomo you've heard of and are familiar with. Therefore, I > deduce, you are using it. Thus, it is useful. A normal case of bait-and-switch. It is advertised (maybe not by authors, but by the third parties) as useful. It *looks* useful when you start using it. The moment you understand which pit you got into [I"M NOT A MAJORDOMO USER, this is all hearsay] you invested so much time trying to fix things that it makes switching to other solutions very painful. Same with Perl. It is advertised as a programming language, while it is not [I assume you know what "I" mean by a programming language ;-]. But it takes an enormous investment of time to reach the language agility to understand that this advertisement was false. Toning down the pitch of the advertisement campaign could have avoided a lot of frustration of Perl users with needs for more than scripting... > 2) It hasn't been touched in years (you think). I deduce that it > is is operating within acceptable bounds. Remember the last year story of a (named) physic department chosing Macs for the department network? "All the competitors are offering fixes for their OSes. These OSes should be broken." [quoting from memory] IlyaThread Previous | Thread Next