Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from April 2000
Against my own advice to ignore this source, I'd just like to point that that this source continuously ignores post after post clearly demonstrating a point in several fora when maligning a person who takes the posts and collectively represents them, and resorts to personal attacks while avoiding the issues presented. See? I can do that too. A bit childish, but more to your level I think. Perl 5.6, in the context of a Perl system (which includes more than the core modules), is broken, in that it's extension mechanism is not compatible with many of those modules, and no backwards compatibility was built in. The point is, have we learned from this lesson, or are we just going to go on ignoring it and spouting off about how useless Win32 is and how stupid its users are? > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Nandor [mailto:pudge@pobox.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 8:05 AM > To: David Grove > Cc: Tom Christiansen; perl5-porters@perl.org > Subject: RE: More patching! Less whining! > > > At 5.08 -0600 2000.04.01, David Grove wrote: > >I've never heard of any perfect piece of software, especially in > its first > >release. But there's a vast difference between imperfect and broken. > > Against my own advice to ignore this source, I'd just like to point out > that this source has given not one shred of evidence that perl 5.6 is > broken, in any way. w00p! > > -- > Chris Nandor | pudge@pobox.com | http://pudge.net/ > Andover.Net | chris.nandor@andover.net | http://slashcode.com/