develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from July 2020

Re: Announcing Perl 7

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Sawyer X
July 3, 2020 13:42
Re: Announcing Perl 7
Message ID:

On 6/30/20 5:50 AM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 3:54 PM Kent Fredric <> wrote:
>> the net result, whatever p5p does
> For the record, p5p has nothing to do with it.  The public mailing
> list appears to have been carefully and intentionally excluded from
> the first few months of Perl 7 development,

I understand how this seems, but I want to try and explain this:

* p5p has a record of being a very unfruitful place for in-depth public 
discussion which is not laser focused. This isn't necessarily a bad 
thing, but it is when we were discussing next Perl. It was also 
difficult to discuss other things. Instead, we found it suitable to 
start having face-to-face conversations that started as "p5h" (Perl 5 
Hackathon) and later renamed to the "Perl Core Summit" to which many 
people who work on Perl or are major stakeholders to Perl (including 
core developers, major company stakeholder representatives, tooling, and 
vendor maintainers) were invited. You are familiar with these events 
because you were also invited. We also wrote about them later online. 
They were officially sponsored by The Perl Foundation, though we reached 
out to companies for direct financial sponsorship.

* At the last Perl Core Summit, we had a conversation that was close to 
the "mug throwing" one that later led to Perl 6. Emotions were high, as 
was that famous event. My suggestion at the time was to utilize specific 
syntax (the "class {...}" keyword that suggests) to enable all 
modern defaults. Some were in favor, some not. We listed what we each 
find a "modern Perl" should have (from the existing available 
capabilities already in Perl). We also discussed possible problems and 
how to mitigate them.

* This conversation then led to a suggestion I made to the same list. 
The email suggested two options: 1. We keep Perl where it is. I quit and 
help find someone more suitable to help Perl stay put. 2. We change 
Perl. - I had made it very clear that this isn't "with me or without me" 
but rather "we - the group - need to make a decision on this topic. One 
decision I can help with, the other I would be terrible at." (Quick 
apology here to those who do wish to see me step down, no sarcasm.) 
Those who responded (not all did, I admit), whether on the list or 
personally to me, shared a vision of "let's move forward." This led to 
the proposal.

* Since the proposal is too large for p5p to properly evaluate - this 
thread is strong evidence of it - we had discussed it within that group. 
We then pulled more and more people into this. I also personally reached 
out to other people that are or were involved intimately with Perl to 
get their perspectives and thoughts. Larry was informed. I had a chat 
with Jesse, with David, and many others. I sincerely apologized I had 
not reached out to you.

* We also had several video chats in which we discussed the plan for 
hours. I think the first one passed the 4 hour window in a single video 
conference chat.

Now, I understand this seems like a no-starter and many think that any 
such plan should go to p5p, but I disagree. p5p is not the developers 
mailing list as it intends to be. In practice, it is a mailing list for 
those interested in the development, which the developers are part of. 
p5p has developers and people who don't develop. It has contributors and 
people who don't. It has people who actively discuss and lurkers alike. 
This thread is a good example of how difficult it is to have a focused 
conversation. (I don't want to color the entire thread, but some of it 
definitely is an example - not all). We all know how p5p is not good at 
moving forward, but looking at how to not.

>   and there have been very
> few and very incomplete and inconsistent replies here to the many
> questions and objections raised, and no response at all to a number of
> suggested modifications to the proposal that would make implementation
> of the stated goals saner and more achievable.

It takes me a long time to write a response because:

1. I have a day job. It is quite demanding at the moment.

2. I try to have a personal life, which includes having dinner, relaxing 
for a bit, and hopefully some sleep. (Nowadays, I rarely get to properly 
eat breakfast or lunch, if at all.)

3. I want to write thoughtful responses which avoid my 
default-and-stupid knee-jerk reaction which has been proving 
tremendously unhelpful over the years.

4. After hours of drafting (which can sometimes take more than several 
days), a series of additional emails are sent, which I then want to read.

5. I'm drawn into 1 on 1 conversations and group conversations with 
people - for which I'm thankful - in which we delve more into the 
topics. This proves much more beneficial for me hearing arguments than 
on the list, which I imagine people who are more list-oriented won't be 
happy to hear.

In short, it's difficult to engage in the way that the list - or some 
people on the list - would like people to engage in. I do apologize I am 
not able to keep up. I wish I could.

FWIW, I've set a goal to go over EVERY email of this thread today and 
I'll be writing a general response to address the key points, including 
those raised by Dave, Dan, and others.


Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About