develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from March 2000

More patching! Less whining!

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Tom Christiansen
Date:
March 31, 2000 21:24
Subject:
More patching! Less whining!
Message ID:
18319.954566629@chthon
>As for why it was released early 

It wasn't.  It was released late--about a whole year late.
See below for what I mean, and why.

>I have no idea, but wouldn't mind seeing
>this thread following to fruition. 

I somewhat doubt that.  The only thing fruity I've seen in this
thread is most of its postings, yours being far from the least
exaggerated in this regard.

>I am seeing companies and groups deny
>pressuring Sarathy for an early release. This is quickly becoming an
>_embarrassment_ to this group and the Perl community, 

It is?  Really?  You're calling a working, dramatically improved,
and far more than simply timely release an EMBARRASSMENT?  Surely
you jest!  Does twitterpation run in neck of the woods?  I haven't
checked the moon lately.  Perhaps that's it.

I have not, to the best of my recollection, seen even a single
compatibility issue between the previous release and this one amongst
any one of the thousands or so Perl programs runig on my system,
nor even a burp in compiling any external module.  While it is
possible of course possible that my memory is selective here, it
seems also possible that the faultometer points to the notion that
just maybe there's something wrong with *your* environment.  The
build failures I've seen come in have all appeared to my casual
inspection ephemeral at worst.  Again, I'm not Andy and such, so
that's not subject matter to quickly catch my eye.

As some of you have doubtless noticed, I've been stress-testing and
feature-testing various pieces of Perl.  And guess what?  Yep, some
things are broken!  However did you guess?  Now guess what else:
These things, nearly to the very last of them, have in fact *ALWAYS*
been broken!  Why are you not excoriating the previous release
managers for having the temerity to emit a version of Perl that
was, in fact, imperfect?

I'll tell you why: because software has bugs.  All software has bugs
and infelicities.  It always has and it always will, and if you wait 
until it doesn't, you're going to be wait a long, long time.

>and there seems no reason to doubt that this will worsen in a very
>short time.

Now you're simply being needlessly paranoid by spreading this sort
of silliness.  *WHAT* is going to worsen?  This non-existent
`embarrassment'?  Well, feel free to embarrass yourself all you
want to, but this is a release whose contributors should be proud
of.  Why?  Because it's a *good* release, and it is far past time
that it were released to the world.

>I also suspect that the culprit will emerge shortly as well.

Perhaps so, but if that happens, there'll be no question whom to 
blame: follow the hand that's holding the mirror.

Yes, that's right.  The only `culprits' here are those very individuals
seeking to cast aspersions of negligence at precisely those targets
where such defamations are in fact the least called for.  The sheer
mass of people who sit on their butts and expect somebody *else*
to slave away for them is astounding.

>There was also no warning that I've seen that 5.6 was an early beta, or

It wasn't.

>early-beta-ish, though that's certainly where it's stands. 

You're wrong.  As I shall presently prove.

>The Win32
>community is convinced that 5.6 is out, stable, and available only from one
>source. 

And just whose fault might you be construing *that* to be?  If the
helpless and hapless demand that all be handed them on a silver
platter because they are either too lazy or too incompetent to seek
their own solutions, how can you blame the hand that holds out a
platter to those bleating multitudes in such earnest need?  There
is no guilt to distribute here.  Nothing stops anyone from solving
their own problems, nor does it stop anyone else from becoming

>I would also qualify "stable" with the stability of the more popular
>modules, Tk, LibWin32, LibWWW, LibNet, GD, DB_File, and other biggies, many
>of which do not compile at all with 5.6 without "relatively minor tweaking".

You're fear mongering.  There was one bug related to Tk.  DB_File
is standard.  LibWWW and LibNet have no problems.  And I'll leave
the remaining crud to the already crudded to crud on their cruddy
own.

>Without these modules, Perl is not Perl. 

Rubbish and poppycock.  And less savory bits, too.

>I am at the dawn of the first
>official release of CodeMagic, Perl's only world-class editor at this time

HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHHAAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAH

Ok, I've nearly recovered from my uncontrolled paraxyms of streaming
hilarity, I have just one question for you, David.  For just how
long have you had this obvious addiction to WORLD-CLASS HALLUCINOGENS?

>soon to go cross-platform, which depends on a stable Perl as a backbone: and
>after officially declaring 5.6 ready, this group is now wondering why it was
>released at all so quickly? 

It wasn't.  It was released incredibly, unprecedentedly SLOWLY.

First of all, to the people who think there's nothing here that
merits a release: you're cracked.

It has been my perception--completely unverified, but nevertheless
my honest impression--that if one were to examine the changes
recorded in the 5.3-to-5.6 perldeltas, that one would find the
greatest functional distance between any pair of consecutive releases
to lie between 5.5 and 5.6.  This might even be true all the way
back to 5.0.

Did you read these?

    Core Enhancements
	Interpreter cloning, threads, and concurrency
	Lexically scoped warning categories
	Unicode and UTF-8 support
	Support for interpolating named characters
	our declarations
	Support for strings represented as a vector of ordinals
	Improved Perl version numbering system
	New syntax for declaring subroutine attributes
	File and directory handles can be autovivified
	open() with more than two arguments
	64-bit support
	Large file support
	Long doubles
	more bits
	Enhanced support for sort() subroutines
	C<sort $coderef @foo> allowed
	File globbing implemented internally
	POSIX character class syntax [: :] supported
	Improved C<qw//> operator
	pack() format 'Z' supported
	pack() format modifier '!' supported
	pack() and unpack() support counted strings
	Comments in pack() templates
	Weak references
	Binary numbers supported
	Lvalue subroutines
	Some arrows may be omitted in calls through references
	Boolean assignment operators are legal lvalues
	exists() is supported on subroutine names
	exists() and delete() are supported on array elements
	Pseudo-hashes work better
	Automatic flushing of output buffers
	Better diagnostics on meaningless filehandle operations
	Where possible, buffered data discarded from duped input filehandle
	eof() has the same old magic as <>
	binmode() can be used to set :crlf and :raw modes
	C<-T> filetest recognizes UTF-8 encoded files as text
	system(), backticks and pipe open now reflect exec() failure
	Improved diagnostics
	Diagnostics follow STDERR
	syswrite() ease-of-use
	Better syntax checks on parenthesized unary operators
	Bit operators support full native integer width
	Improved security features
	C<require> and C<do> may be overridden
	$^X variables may now have names longer than one character
	New variable $^C reflects C<-c> switch
	New variable $^V contains Perl version as a string
	Optional Y2K warnings
    Modules and Pragmata, new or improved
	Modules
	    [zillions]
	Pragmata
	    [various]
    Utility Enhancments
	dprofpp
	find2perl
	h2xs
	perlcc
	perldoc
	The Perl Debugger
    Improved Documentation
    Performance enhancements
	Simple sort() using { $a <=> $b } and the like are optimized
	Optimized assignments to lexical variables
	Faster subroutine calls
    Installation and Configuration Improvements
	-Dusethreads means something different
	New Configure flags
	Threadedness and 64-bitness now more daring
	Long Doubles
	-Dusemorebits
	-Duselargefiles
	installusrbinperl
	SOCKS support
	C<-A> flag
	Enhanced Installation Directories
    Platform specific changes
	Supported platforms
	DOS
	OS390 (OpenEdition MVS)
	VMS
	Win32
    Significant bug fixes
	<HANDLE> on empty files
	C<eval '...'> improvements
	All compilation errors are true errors
	Implicitly closed filehandles are safer
	Behavior of list slices is more consistent
	C<(\$)> prototype and C<$foo{a}>
	C<goto &sub> and AUTOLOAD
	C<-bareword> allowed under C<use integer>
	Failures in DESTROY()
	Locale bugs fixed
	Memory leaks
	Spurious subroutine stubs after failed subroutine calls
	Taint failures under C<-U>
	END blocks and the C<-c> switch
	Potential to leak DATA filehandles
    New or Changed Diagnostics
    New tests

That's a smeg of a lot of feepers crawling up your trousers.  Sure,
some of them are a bit shakey, but this is nothing new.  What's
good enough?  What do you bloody WANT, man?  You want something
that never was nor shall ever be, that's what you want.  Look here
at this, from perlhist:

    5.0          1994-Oct-17
    5.1          1995-Mar-13
    5.2          1996-Feb-29            Prototypes
    5.3          1996-Jun-25            Security Release
    5.4          1997-May-15            Major Maintenance Release
    5.5          1998-Jul-22            Oneperl.
    El Zilcho    All of 1999
    More Nada?   All of 2000

Is that really what you wanted recorded for 2000?  More nothingness?

We have not had a new Perl release since July 22nd, 1998.  Did you
realize that?  By the time TPC4 gets here, there shall have passed
us by what is starting to approach a number perilously proximate
to  TWO LONG YEARS of twenty four months (plus a rare leap day :-)
since our last release.

Why is that?  What does it mean?

I believe I can tell you what it means: expectations are inappropriately
superset.  Look at the notes next to those releases up there.  These
releases do *not* need to completely change the whole world.  In
fact, they oughtn't.  If that's what they're expecting, then they're
expecting perl6, not perl5.6!  And having everything and having it
perfect -- threads, events, signals, compilers, unicode, feep, feep,
feep -- such a thing does not deserve to be called 5.6 if the past
is to be any guide to the future.

Have you no sense of the past?  Do you know how much work as gone
into it?  Watch this.  You'll see the patch rate (well, check-in
rate; some "patches" actually patch many files) over the last few
years:

       1997            1998            1999            2000

    03/97   4       01/98  59       01/99 212       01/00 187
    04/97   4       02/98 156       02/99 312       02/00 441
    05/97  16       03/98 230       03/99 187       03/00 520
    06/97   7       04/98  68       04/99  52
    07/97   9       05/98 159       05/99 212
    08/97   4       06/98 203       06/99  49
    09/97  40       07/98 407       07/99 279
    10/97 104       08/98 102       08/99 208
    11/97 144       09/98 118       09/99 200
    12/97  50       10/98 267       10/99 236
                    11/98 236       11/99  97
                    12/98 122       12/99 144

Notice how the recent activity levels have set new records on
contributed changes.  What more are you asking!?  This has been on
the pot far too long, and lone Sarathy (admittedly with help on
some pieces from Jarkko, Andy, Larry, along with, I'm horribly sorry
to have to say, *depressingly* few others), has seemed, really, to
have by and large done nearly everything that's been getting done
in terms of the brandspanking new superfeature expansions all on
his very own.  Certainly the unification and buck-stopping reside
at his doorstep.  But continued expectations that Sarathy should
toil evermore to happify everyone's favorite feep are neither
charitable nor sustainable.

These inhuman expectations of perfection and infinite work from
folks sitting around on their thumbs and spining are just intolerable.
This is a volunteer organization!  There's nobody you can sue, and
there's no one you can blame save YOURSELF for not having put in
the work.  What did YOU work on?  Did you break it?  Did you fix it?  

How long in your eyes should this terribly tardy release have sat
there stewing?  What's good enough for you?  Don't you think TWO
FRICKING YEARS was good enough?   No release could EVER have seen
the light of day if were held to these insane criteria you apparently
expect to see met.  It's never been that way before, and you're
positively pixilated to expect it now.

    "Programs, like books, are never finished; they are merely
    abandoned."

Eventually it comes time to tidy up the stray feathers and push the
fledgling out of the nest.  It's finally been done, and thank
goodness for that!  This is merely 5.6, not Perl6.  It's just not
that big a deal, so get over it already.  5.6.1 will be along by
and by.  Why aren't you working on it RIGHT NOW???

Less whining!  More patching!

--tom

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About