Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2006
[This will confuse threading archivers...] On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 05:36:25PM -0700, Jan Dubois wrote: > ActiveState employs 2 core Tcl developers, including the release manager. > Most of their client sponsored work goes back into core Tcl. Subjectively > I have to say that there are no customers willing to pay for the same kind > of core improvement work for Perl. Might this be because: On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 08:31:38PM +0000, Scott Walters wrote: > Perl is a victim of its success. Releases work too well. CPAN authors > have too much independence from what is being done in core. True, > problems are found later, but, testing is hard. It's hard to do > better than the t/ tests and the tinderboxes. [versus] > As long as I'm running off at the mouth, I'd like to comment on > backwards compatability. It seems every time I try to run a Python > program or Java program, it completely fails with a stacktrace for > reason of not having the exact right version installed. If Perl were > really out of touch with users, it would have this problem too. [which to avoid any digression into slander or not of Python or Java, I assume is subjective, but an accurate *perception*. In as much as I'm assuming that objectively Python etc actually fails very infrequently, but (for you at least) Perl does it so much less frequently that Python's few failures are far more memorable.] Also, are there any areas in core perl that could be usefully improved, for which it is possible to give reliable, bounded estimates of the work involved? Nicholas Clark