Slashdot Mirror


The Perl Foundation Grants Are Running Out

dogma01 writes "It looks like the grants to fund: Larry, Damian, and Dan have pretty much run out. :(" Keeping guys like these working on Perl is definitely a good thing(tm) if you are looking to support the Open Source Community somehow. You can donate here if you are feeling generous.

235 comments

  1. What's left to do? by b.foster · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I have been a Perl guru since version 2.0, and I can honestly say that the features added since that time have not made my life any easier. Perl has reached a very mature stage in product development - a stage that is rare amongst feature-happy open source coders. At this stage, it is no longer worthwhile to pay people to continue developing the language. The only necessities are bug and security fixes, which can easily be handled by one person working part-time.

    I am not by any means saying that Perl is dead - indeed, it will be many years before Python is able to offer the versatility and brevity that Perl has provided me with for ages. But the developers need to get off the gravy train and head for greener pastures. The time to leave is now; there is no work left to do.

    Just my 2c.

    b.

    1. Re:What's left to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you even looked at the Perl 6 stuff that's been discussed about 50 times on Slashdot?

    2. Re:What's left to do? by ranulf · · Score: 5, Interesting
      "The time to leave is now; there is no work left to do"

      I take it you've not had a look at the Perl 6 spec. There's a lot of radical new development underfoot. Whether perl needs more features now, given that it is fairly mature is another matter. It seems to do almost everything that people want it to do.

      Although, " version 2.0, and I can honestly say that the features added since that time have not made my life any easier. "

      How about adding OO? How about special variables gaining names? etc... It's clear that every time perl has been upgraded, it has been of benefit to quite a large chunk of users.

    3. Re:What's left to do? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have been a Perl guru since version 2.0, and I can honestly say that the features added since that time have not made my life any easier.

      You never use references?? If you have no necessity for hash references or list references for complex data structures, then your Perl needs must be pretty low.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    4. Re:What's left to do? by dthable · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I don't want to wait for years until all of the changes are done. We've hit the point in development where we need real, supported threads. We need a better OO system to help us manage our code and Perl doesn't do that now. If we wait, the world is just going to pass us by. If we move, then why would I want to give money to support the development of Perl.

      The changes to Perl need to be made the same wa Perl came to live...by Larry and other hobby programmers working in their free time to develop something. Don't keep laying a guilt trip on the development community for money when we won't see anything useful for 3+ years.

    5. Re:What's left to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      • What perl needs is more features now..
      I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you on that one. There comes a time in every language where you just have to say "enough is enough" and leave it at that. Otherwise, it gets too complicated for your users to understand and they fall away, essentially losing you 'market share'. Which is certainly not a good thing.
    6. Re:What's left to do? by Tablizer · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      (* You never use references?? If you have no necessity for hash references or list references for complex data structures, then your Perl needs must be pretty low. *)

      That is what databases are for. Roll-your-own databases have the problem of hard-wiring the implementation into the calling code. If you change the representation, then you have to change all your calls.

      A better approach is to hide the collection implementation behind some kind of API so that you can change the representation without recoding everything.

      The most common approach is a database or database-like API that stays pretty much the same for multiple implementation engines from hash-like things up to Oracle.

      Even if you don't like RDBMS, wrapping collection manipulations to hide implementation is still a good thing (and contrary to popular belief, you don't need OO sh*t for this.)

    7. Re:What's left to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now if only Perl had operating overloading, like C++ and Java, we could actually do what you suggest. Which is a fantastic idea by the way - just imagine, a simple -> in perl going off and querying the oracle database in the basement. That would rock.

    8. Re:What's left to do? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      That is what databases are for. Roll-your-own databases have the problem of hard-wiring the implementation into the calling code. If you change the representation, then you have to change all your calls.

      I think (hope) we're talking about different things. I'm not talking about rolling up a Perl data structure for persistance purposes, I'm talking about internal data structures that can be passed between functions.

      Unless you think that instead of passing back a hash reference of data from my subroutine, I should have a temporary table in a database, store the data in the database, read it back in the calling subroutine, and then delete the temporary data! If this is what you're talking about, please check yourself into the nearest mental health facility. :)

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    9. Re:What's left to do? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      Which is a fantastic idea by the way - just imagine, a simple -> in perl going off and querying the oracle database in the basement. That would rock.

      That would indeed rock, which is why Perl already supports it. Review "Tied Variables".

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    10. Re:What's left to do? by mbrod · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I have been a Perl guru since version 2.0

      Really!

      Where have you contributed? What modules have you authored on CPAN?

      Didn't think so.

      Or is a Perl guru someone who waits with baited breath on slashdot for a Perl story to bash.

    11. Re:What's left to do? by scrutty · · Score: 2
      Eh? perl does have operator overloading (although not really that similar to C++).
      Java doesn't (although the + operator is used to concatenate strings).

      I guess you just have a bizarre and rarefied sense of humour.

      --
      -- Oh Well
    12. Re:What's left to do? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* I'm not talking about rolling up a Perl data structure for persistance purposes, *)

      Databases and persistance are not necessarily the same thing.

      (* Unless you think that instead of passing back a hash reference of data from my subroutine, I should have a temporary table in a database, store the data in the database, read it back in the calling subroutine, and then delete the temporary data! *)

      Some DB protocols allow auto-temporary collections. Besides, sometimes you end up needing to store stuff anyhow. You don't want to have to overhaul your code to switch to a persistence-friendly protocol.

      I think you are missing my point. Requirements for collections change (at least in my domain). Thus, one should pick a protocol that can scale from simple to complex without having to rip-out and redo the collection handling code when you move up a step or two.

      Perhaps we need to look at a specific example.

      Passing a database record-set handle is not really different than passing an array handle anyhow (in a good protocol). Your view that database==disk is not necessary accurate.

    13. Re:What's left to do? by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      How about adding OO?

      Yikes! We need FEWER programming envioronments with bolted-on-as-an-afterthought Object Oriented 'features', not more of them.

    14. Re:What's left to do? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > How about adding OO?

      A mistake.

      Don't get me wrong; I _love_ Perl. But the way Perl 5 does OO
      feels tacked on at best and really seems quite tortured. IMO,
      they should have waited for the major syntax breaking in Perl 6,
      which will (hopefully) allow them to do OO in a way that can
      be more like a core part of the language and less like a really
      strange syntax for hashes.

      I certainly agree that Perl has improved since version 2, or
      even since version 4, and that more improvements can potentially
      be useful. If I understand correctly, early versions of Perl
      5 didn't have very good language support... that surely seems
      worth fixing, and I'm sure there are other things. I'd *really*
      like to see the addition of textbuffers (a la elisp), which,
      combined with dynamic scoping (which Perl already has), can
      be extremely powerful. (Not that this is in the plans...)

      Perl 6 is going to be such a huge change, it has me both
      excited and scared at the same time.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    15. Re:What's left to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a bolted-on-as-an-afterthought OO environment.. err.. well.. it is now, but with 6 it won't be. That's part of the reason for moving to 6.

    16. Re:What's left to do? by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      A troll straight from the MadLibs of trolling.

      • Enter Open Source tool name: Perl
      • Enter early version number:2.0
      • Enter alternitive tool name: Python
      This could easily be a troll for, say, KDE.
      • Enter Open Source project: KDE
      • Enter early version number:1.0
      • Enter alternitive project: Gnome
      And you'd have:
      • I have been a KDE guru since version 1.0, and I can honestly say that the features added since that time have not made my life any easier. KDE has reached a very mature stage in product development - a stage that is rare amongst feature-happy open source coders. At this stage, it is no longer worthwhile to pay people to continue developing the language. The only necessities are bug and security fixes, which can easily be handled by one person working part-time.
      • I am not by any means saying that KDE is dead - indeed, it will be many years before Gnome is able to offer the versatility and brevity that KDE has provided me with for ages. But the developers need to get off the gravy train and head for greener pastures. The time to leave is now; there is no work left to do.

        Just my 2c.

        b.

      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    17. Re:What's left to do? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* Now if only Perl had operating overloading, like C++ and Java, we could actually do what you suggest. Which is a fantastic idea by the way - just imagine, a simple -> in perl going off and querying the oracle database in the basement. That would rock. *)

      Or, change the syntax so that you don't rely as much on operators. I realize that operators are compact and such, but there are only so many to go around.

      But, there are many different ways to approach such API's without making them "wide".

      Oracle in your basement? What about MySQL? Or was he just joking?

    18. Re:What's left to do? by ProfKyne · · Score: 2

      I am not by any means saying that Perl is dead - indeed, it will be many years before Python is able to offer the versatility and brevity that Perl has provided me with for ages.

      Not to be argumentative, but brevity is not a concern of Python's. Python is explicitly verbose because it makes the syntax easier to read, understand, and maintain. At least, that's what its proponents claim.

      (FWIW I really like both Python and Perl, and agree with the parent -- Python is very deserving of further investment/attention.)

      --
      "First you gotta do the truffle shuffle."
    19. Re:What's left to do? by Kraegar · · Score: 2

      Are you sure you're talking about perl and not M$ Word?

    20. Re:What's left to do? by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      If it's not 'bolted on' it almost by definition needs to break all previously written perl code.

      Or will there be a switch that turns on the OO features?

    21. Re:What's left to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perl 6 will break all previously written perl code. That's why you'll have to specifically activate perl 6 mode as opposed to legacy mode.

    22. Re:What's left to do? by Domini · · Score: 2

      Agreed.

      OO in perl is clumsy.

      Perl 6 is becoming another C++: still C, and not quite clean OO.

      Rather have a properly OO designed language with a small lexical description do the OO job for you. That's what made Smalltalk so cool, and why Python is better than Perl in this regard.

      Don't ge me wrong, perl is way cool. And one can program OO in any non OO language... just not legibly. (Add this to perls legibility tract-record and you have a winner! ;) )

      My 0.01999999R

    23. Re:What's left to do? by Khazunga · · Score: 2
      Thank goodness Java doesn't have operator overloading. It's really one of those features that are there to make code writing 10 times easier, and code reading 100 times more difficult.

      1+1... eval ... 3???

      --
      If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
  2. :O! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    God Forbid they get... *gasp* REAL JOBS!@!#

  3. Not just perl... by AVee · · Score: 5, Funny

    Perl is definitely a good thing(tm), your favorite website depends on it!

    1. Re:Not just perl... by mark_lybarger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      i don't think a port of slashcode would be too bad, in fact it would probably clean it up a lot.

      perl/mod_perl was fine back in the early slash days. that was about the best there was. now there's a j2ee environment that provides flexability and feature rich components. you can develop to a model much easier. you can also scale a lot better from what i can tell. all software that doesn't get ported eventually gets outdated and rots, why don't the /. admins feel like keeping up with innovation?

    2. Re:Not just perl... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what? goatse.cx is on perl?

  4. Re:Perl sux0rz by Theodore+Logan · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not sure what you mean by "real" but if you think OO and Perl don't go together, you're just plain wrong.

    --

    "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok

  5. Donate to PHP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Donate to PHP by bryhhh · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You can't compare perl and php like this. perl does much more than provide dynamic content in web pages. I've just written a perl script to migrate 20,000 users from an NT domain to a Windows 2000 active directory. I doubt that PHP could do this. Both perl and php are excellent products. Which one is better? that clearly depends upon the application.

    2. Re:Donate to PHP by dybvandal · · Score: 1

      actually it probably could but this is surely not one of PHP's stronger points we have code most of our shell scripts in PHP because that is what we mainly do: Code PHP Scripts But as always its often not only choosing the right tool but also knowning the tool. If we end up writing more shell scripts than web scripts we might have to take a closer look at PHP's alternatives (such as Perl)

  6. Fund the little but interesting projects by codexus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Perl was not designed to do what it's now being used for. The result is an awfully designed language made of layers and layers of incoherent stuff. Wouldn't the money be better used on projects that not as many people have heard about but that have a lot of potential if they can be completed?

    --
    True warriors use the Klingon Google
    1. Re:Fund the little but interesting projects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny. I could say the same about Java.

    2. Re:Fund the little but interesting projects by shoppa · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Perl was not designed to do what it's now being used for.

      A tool that is "top-down" spec'ed, analyzed, and designed will be good for exactly what it was defined for. Perl has grown in ways that such a designed language never could.

      To me, the true mark of success for a tool is that it gets used for all sorts of things for which it was not designed. In this way, Perl is the biggest success story of all time.

      The result is an awfully designed language made of layers and layers of incoherent stuff.

      It has been cleaned up, slowly. It has wonderful OO techniques available (although they probably do not appeal to anyone who believes that C++ is "object oriented"). The worst punctuation-based built-ins now have symbolic names. But yes, it is kinda messy, in a way very similar to English.

      Well-designed human languages (e.g. Esperanto) don't fare too well in comparison to the ugly mess ones, either :-)

    3. Re:Fund the little but interesting projects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Listen up, fool, for I am about to give you some advice:

      Your problem is that you try too hard. Making comments like that doesn't draw many replies. People generally just read it - assuming they browse at -1, which most don't - then think 'what an idiot' and move on. It's simply not worth a reply.

      However, I feel it would be helpful to give you some advice on your technique.

      If you wish to be a successful troll, study the work of the masters, who will get a trollish comment modded up to +5 and a fistful of bites while leaving it obvious to those with a clue that their comment was just a common troll.

      The basic rule is try to fit in. Don't make it obvious. Be subtle. In short, do the complete opposite to what you are trying to do.

      It is your lack of subtlety that shows your immaturity. Hopefully one day you will learn.

    4. Re:Fund the little but interesting projects by consumer · · Score: 2
      Wouldn't the money be better used on projects that not as many people have heard about but that have a lot of potential if they can be completed?

      No, the money would be best spent where it will result in the biggest benefit for the community. Perl has proven to be a very popular and very useful project to a large audience of developers. It has attracted some high-caliber programming talent to work on Perl 6. There are only a handful of other projects out there (Apache, Linux) with the same potential for positive impact on the open source programming world. So, Perl offers a better return on your investment than most of the projects that you could help fund.

    5. Re:Fund the little but interesting projects by Jobe_br · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I use Perl all the time to do OO programming, but I wouldn't call Perl's OO techniques wonderful, not by a long shot. Perl has its place. I don't believe that Perl is the best contender out there for web-based things, PHP is far better in many of those areas, but Perl can do many, many things in the console world that PHP can't hope to do (even thru the PHP executable).

      In the OO world, Perl's implementation is a hack at best. The fact that there are only about a bazillion different ways to define a package ("class" in OO-speak) and to get subroutines and parameters of that package viewable/executable by including scripts makes my point for me. Its great that these different ways exist - they each serve their own purpose, but they don't come close to converging under a wonderful OO techniques umbrella!

      What I would really like to see is a good book written for Perl, not that talks about the language features and such, as the Camel book does, but rather about how to effectively use all the modules in CPAN. The number of contributed modules is just enormous and I'm sure I could make use of more of 'em if I had a decent reference book for 'em (I know a few sites exist out there, but I'd really like to see more thoughtful coverage). Maybe identify a few different "major" areas and then get a few Perl gurus together to write a few different volumes ... something, anything :)

    6. Re:Fund the little but interesting projects by tshoppa · · Score: 2
      I wouldn't call Perl's OO techniques wonderful

      I agree, Perl OO is not the same as C++ or Java OO. It does typify TIMTOWTDI. Perl OO's use of Perl's built-in hashes and calling flexibility (especially run-time redirection) is what makes it wonderful; you seem to feel differently.

      good book written for Perl about how to effectively use all the modules in CPAN.

      CPAN is amazingly useful, and (thank god) stops folks from re-inventing the wheel all day long. It's a core strength of Perl.

      Christiansen's _Perl Cookbook_ is a start, especially for the bread-and-butter CPAN stuff. But all the modules in CPAN? That's a lot! There are (at this moment) 3454 such modules! I think it's better to train people to think to themselves Somebody else must've solved this problem before. I'll look in CPAN for the solution and let them do the looking themselves.

    7. Re:Fund the little but interesting projects by enjo13 · · Score: 1

      Enlighten me, because I've seen this kind of jab at C++ before..

      But what about C++ isn't "Object Oriented".. and more importantly (at least in terms of relevance), what OO feature does PERL support that C++ does not?

      Nick

      --
      Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
    8. Re:Fund the little but interesting projects by tshoppa · · Score: 2
      C++ has lousy run-time type information. Perl lets you interrogate a class's structure and capabilities at run-time: class name, hierarchical relationships, and method compatibility. (I'm mostly quoting from Conway's book here.)

      If you've always been wearing the C++ strait jacket, you might not know how much you're missing by not having dynamic class reassignment and dynamic inheritance. Other OO languages (like Smalltalk) have similar dynamic qualities.

      It depends on your programming style - you may actually like the restrictive C++ way. I don't. A lot of the things where you have to sweat to make multiple inheritance work in C++ come very naturally in OO Perl.

    9. Re:Fund the little but interesting projects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There are only a handful of other projects out there (Apache, Linux) with the same potential for positive impact on the open source programming world. So, Perl offers a better return on your investment than most of the projects that you could help fund.

      Sure... if you want another Multics.

    10. Re:Fund the little but interesting projects by enjo13 · · Score: 1

      What your talking about has very little to do with Object Oriented methodology, and much much more to do with language semantics.

      I've used both PERL and C++ in fairly large projects (although my experience is more weighted to C++, I do feel I am fairly experienced in both). I find the loose nature of Perl to be it's biggest problem. All of the things that you mentioned are generally needed as band-aids for poor design.. you should never NEED to discover a classes methods and capabilities at runtime. The only exception to this is "component programming" which is useful, but in my experience is rarely of serious use..

      To depend on run time information about an object is generally a dangerous proposition.. it eliminates your best friend (the compiler) and potentially forces quite a bit of decision making to occur at runtime.. errors that are caught by the compiler in a more static language are left to the runtime system.. and the result is more difficult maintenence. Its a trade-off.. component level programming is nice, but can lead to some radically buggy systems if not used carefully. A better idea is to use a more static language and design around your need for RTTI, which creates a more seamless and error free system long before the program is ever launched.

      --
      Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
    11. Re:Fund the little but interesting projects by ffatTony · · Score: 2

      C++ has lousy run-time type information. Perl lets you interrogate a class's structure and capabilities at run-time: class name, hierarchical relationships, and method compatibility. (I'm mostly quoting from Conway's book here.)

      You're referring to what java calls Introspection/Reflection and I have heard rumors this is in the works for C++ as well.

    12. Re:Fund the little but interesting projects by Weird+Dave · · Score: 1

      Your signature is a little ironic since perl is one of the very few languages with a klingon module (written by Damian Conway) that you can program in.

      --

      Grumble, Grumble
    13. Re:Fund the little but interesting projects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the record: There are extant add-on libraries for C++ that allow object introspection & reflection. I am sorry but i do not know their names. However this is just so you know, and so that if you are curious you can research this on your own.

      I do not know if these libraries work with all compilers, though i'd suspect they don't. I also do not know if the introspection libraries are as powerful and expressive as the introspection capabilities inherent to Objective C, Java, Python and Perl. I know that there are certain things that will be limited becuase C++ is not an very dynamic language at all, and I know that as long as C++ is C++ (i.e., as long as it is statically compiled) there will be some things you just cannot do, for example take at runtime some random object from an external library not compiled with your introspection library and ask 'does this object support the method "parseMessage()', and what signatures does it support?" (Also, look up the Fragile Base Class problem sometime if you want to be absolutely horrified.)

      The dirty little secret of object oriented languages is that if you have a sufficiently flexible language, you can implement object orientation totally within the context of the language, I.E., as an add on library that the language has no inherent syntax for. LISP does this. Perl and Python almost do this, many aspects of perl classes are handled by perl constructs (for example, the @ISA array). The reason perl's object oriented capabilities are kind of looked down on are becuase one, there is no type checking, which is a big advantage of well-developed object heirarchies; two, it is kind of clumsy, due to wierdly-named constructs like @ISA and the necessity of scattering ->s everywhere; three, it lets you bend the rules a lot. You can write flawlessly object-oriented code in perl, but if you do, the object orientation will be almost a coding standard. (It is kind of hard to understand what i mean by this unless you have used a number of OO languages.) The end result is that expressive and powerful as perl's object system is, it never really feels like it is integrated with the Perl language; it feels like something else that you're using in addition to perl, and doesn't feel stable at all.

  7. Hello and I am a troll. by j1mmy · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Please do not agree with me. I made no attempt to justify my assertion, therefore it can hardly be construed as valid. If I had started from a general set of core concepts concerning Perl, and built a logical progression from such concepts to my conclusion, then your response may actually have some merit. Unfortunately, I am just bored at work and decided to see who I could piss off.

    Apparently, we are both failures, and we should kill ourselves. You go first.

    1. Re:Hello and I am a troll. by Marc2k · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      i too am bored at work, and that was the cleverest troll-trapping trick i have ever read.

      --
      --- What
    2. Re:Hello and I am a troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know the first thing about trolling, so you can shut up.

  8. Isn't there anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    who is profiting from the development of perl, and would get money for various reasons if perl6 were finished?

    Redhat? Mysql AB? Umm.. OSDN? Hemos is subsidizing everything2 already, maybe he could subsidize a bit of Perl6 as well :)

    Hell, one would think that they could almost go to the bank and get a loan to finish perl 6, and use the expected profits from the O'Reiley Camel Book for Perl 6 as collateral. They will certainly make lots of money off of that, i've looked at the perl 6 apocalypses and there is DEFINITELY going to be NO WAY that you will be able to make sense of it without buying the book.

    It's disappointing that the rest of the computer industry isn't jumping on Parrot as a potential competitor to CLR, as a truly great cross-language cross-platform universal bytecode engine.. i really think that would be a huge step toward the overpowering of .NET by Everybody Else, and could potentially make a lot of money for people in general if the technology there were applied.

    1. Re:Isn't there anyone by JUSTONEMORELATTE · · Score: 1
      Isn't there anyone who is profiting from the development of perl?
      Yes there is: me. I pull in around $1000/month in supplemental income doing perl work on the side. (I also have a day job, but drafted an addendum to the non-compete agreement so I could continue doing the contracting that fed me before this job came along)
      And I've just sent $50 towards the foundation. Thanks for putting it into perspective for me.
    2. Re:Isn't there anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who is profiting from the development of perl

      Well, for one, me. The company I work for relies greatly on perl, our whole web-serving infrastructure is built on perl. When there is a bug in perl, we need it fixed, and we need it fixed now, which is why we have invested so much in Perl. I am at least proud to say that my company is wise enough to give back to the community, both by providing a mirror and even going as far as hosting perl.org(Look at the very bottom :-) )

      P.S- sorry guys, had to post anon coward this time for obvious reasons.

    3. Re:Isn't there anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You earn $1000/mo off perl. You gave $50. You claim "perspective."

      One of these things is not like the others, one of these things does not belong...

    4. Re:Isn't there anyone by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > who is profiting from the development of perl, and would get
      > money for various reasons if perl6 were finished?

      Anyone who sells techie books. O'Reilly, for example.

      How _much_ money they'd make from Perl 6 books I don't know.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    5. Re:Isn't there anyone by Anitra · · Score: 1

      Yup, there is. Specifically, DynDNS.org, which I've been volunteering for for 2.5 years, and recently hired me part-time (as I am a poor college student who can't find a paying job for the summer). Even though we are also funded by donations, the company made a rather large donation to the Perl Foundation back in January. Now it's YOUR turn to do your part :)

      --

      Have you read the Moderation Guidelines Addendum?
  9. Help, Google! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Without extensively using open source software (specifically including Perl), Google would currently owe M$ a little over $200M in software licensing fees. I hope they can step forward and contribute to the effort like AOL/Netscape does for Mozilla!

    1. Re:Help, Google! by qurob · · Score: 1


      Where do you buy MS Perl at?

    2. Re:Help, Google! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Without extensively using open source software (specifically including Perl), Google would currently owe M$ a little over $200M in software licensing fees. I hope they can step forward and contribute to the effort like AOL/Netscape does for Mozilla!

      Since Google is a big Python house, I guess the funds might go elsewhere.

  10. Kernighan and Ritchie? by ceswiedler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do we fund Brian Kernighan and Dennis Ritchie? Or Bjarne Stroustroup? No; all three of them are "funded" by having actual jobs, and the task of adding "features" to C and C++ are handled by international or ANSI committees. Is there a fund for Linus or any of the other Linux kernel hackers? No, they all have jobs with actual companies.

    1. Re:Kernighan and Ritchie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, my wife has to work in the MacDonalds as a part-time, so I can do my open-source work.

    2. Re:Kernighan and Ritchie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The thing Wall et al are being paid to do is not that they are "adding features"; they are actually the core people writing the specifications, the interpreter, and the associated tools. Someone has to do that. They also are coordinating the perl volunteer development effort, no small task.

      Also note that some of those grants are going to things that benefit the community back-- for example, Damian Conway's grant helped him travel around the country and give talks educating people on perl.

      Brian Kerninghan, Dennis Ritchie, Bjarne Stroustroup, James Gosling, and Guido Van Rossen were all lucky in that they found companies (AT&T, AT&T, AT&T, Sun, BeOpen/Zope Corporation) that were willing to pay for them to design the languages and write the compilers. Wall and co. unfortunately just have not found such a sponsor.

      So i think it is in everyone's benefit-- seeing as the Perl6 tools, once done, will be included with just about every single commercial UNIX in the universe, and used as the foundation of countless numbers of professional ventures, for example websites-- if the community would pick up the slack and raise some money for them to finish their (important, i think) work.

      Do we fund Linus and Alan Cox? No, becuase companies are willing to subsidise them. Does that make their money any less of a charitable donation? I don't think so. If Linus and Alan Cox lost their jobs, would a "fund" arise for them so they could continue to write linux? I think the answer is, hell yes. Some things just need to be done one way or another.

    3. Re:Kernighan and Ritchie? by metacosm · · Score: 2

      Someone might point out that a large part of the C++ Spec still has not be implemented in ANY compilers. It is easier to add features to a spec via ANSI committess, than to add it to the compiler. These

      :)

    4. Re:Kernighan and Ritchie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually both languages were developed at Bell Labs. Bell allowed these programmers great freedoms in choosing what they worked on. Bjarne wrote C++ while there to support his network simulation work.

    5. Re:Kernighan and Ritchie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, don't you know, these Perl folks are artistes. You see, they are under the cover of
      the Artistic License. They are special. Tut tut, real work is so gauche for the likes of them.

    6. Re:Kernighan and Ritchie? by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that since those projects aren't directly funded by users, then other projects (such as perl or OpenBSD) also should not?

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    7. Re:Kernighan and Ritchie? by bcrowell · · Score: 3, Insightful
      ...the task of adding "features" to C and C++ are handled by international or ANSI committees.
      C++ is such a monstrosity, it's clear that there were too many committees involved.

      Is there a fund for Linus or any of the other Linux kernel hackers?
      False analogy. People sell Linux distributions, and make money that way. That's why Red Hat can pay Alan Cox a salary. Nobody sells Perl interpreters.

      Do we fund Brian Kernighan and Dennis Ritchie? Or Bjarne Stroustroup?
      False analogy. Larry Wall wrote an open-source implementation of Perl. K&R and Stroustroup didn't write open-source implementations of C and C++.

      The funding model you advocate resulted in badly designed languages(*) that didn't get free implementations until decades later. The funding model Perl is using has resulted in a well designed language that has always been available in free implementations.

      *Especially C++, but C too. The fact that something like autoconf is necessary shows that certain aspects of C were really botched.

    8. Re:Kernighan and Ritchie? by bentini · · Score: 2
      Umm, actually, I think that K&R and Bjarne's code was fairly open. In fact, the thing that made C++ flourish (according to The Design and Evolution of C++) is that they could drop a compiler in a location, leave it alone for a year, come back and it would have prospered because of the community.
      They weren't quite *as* open as BSD, but when you paid for UNIX in the Good Old Days, you got the source.

      This is actually a VERY apt analogy, especially because it points out something that /.'ers are afraid to admit: Monopolies are good for CS. IBM, AT&T Bell Labs, XEROX PARC were all funded by monopolies. Many of the great innovations came out of these places. Add in universities (which are fairly similar), and that's most of the development in CS right there.

      Why? Because those places are *able* to give cushy jobs like this that can fund deveopment of cockamameyed ideas that turn into revolutionary concepts.

  11. Perl 6 is a mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I've been using perl pretty much constantly since the Pink Camel, and believe me, Perl 5 is an extremely good language for quick scripting things. That's what it was designed for. Sure, you can do big projects in it, but it's not exactly ideal. Recently I've started using Ruby as well, and I intend to move my department over to it instead of wasting time with Perl 6.

    One of the goals of Perl 6 is to make non-trivial projects possible. That's good. The way it's being done is bad. Perl was once a lightweight, extremely flexible language. Now it's become a huge ugly monster. People wanted OO, so a nasty hack was bolted on top to allow some semblance of it. Now this nasty hack is being expanded. Sure, the code's different, but the basic form is the same. Kludge upon kludge upon kludge; I'd much rather have a nice, clean, pure language (and not one with loads of irritating whitespace thankyou very much).

    The same goes for the syntax. All the switching between $, @ and % is really irritating (ask a newbie how to get at the length of the keys array of a hash inside a hash, for example), and the changes proposed for 6 are just making this worse -- it seems that Larry, in his infinite wisdom, wants to prefix every data type with a different hard-to-type character. Perl was only designed for the three data types, and adding more is a mess.

    Perl 6 is a complete rewrite, but it keeps all the mess which has accumulated over the previous versions. This is not good. Sure, my const int $var = 27; may look neat (in the same way that, say, Pascal does), but $var isn't entirely constant, or entirely an integer, it's just a hack which makes it sort of behave like one. The whole thing is an exercise in pseudo-computer science masturbation with little real purpose except to please the managers who dislike the one thing that makes Perl special.

    On a similar note is regexes. I'm an avid fan of regular expressions simply because a nondeterministic finite automata is far more flexible than linear code. However, Larry must have been smoking that cheap $2 crack when he wrote this. Does he want Perl 6 to be flex or something?

    I won't be going on to use 6. It's a nice idea, but it's completely unnecessary. It won't make large projects any easier to manage (the language is still, at heart, an almighty hack -- an impressive one, but still a hack). It won't make OO any cleaner. It won't make development any faster. To put it bluntly, Perl scripts will still look less beautiful than our friend Mr Goatse. I'd prefer to use a language which has always been pure synthesis of science and engineering, not some half-baked imposter.

    Perl 6 will be nice, but I'm guessing it will be the end of Perl. It can't do what it wants to do whilst still being based upon a nasty mess. There are now other options, which provide all of Perl's power and none of the mess. Sorry, but *BSD, erm, Perl is dying. Larry is buggering it up the ass without lubricants, just like Shoeboy is doing to Larry's daughter.

    1. Re:Perl 6 is a mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      1. The same goes for the syntax. All the switching between $, @ and % is really irritating (ask a newbie how to get at the length of the keys array of a hash inside a hash, for example),

        This particular problem is actually removed totally in perl 6. The @$&% chars are now part of the variable name and dereference has been given its own character, so the second element of @something is now @something[1], not $something[1]. This should make navigating those complex data structures much more intuitive.
      2. The important thing about perl6 is the power it gives you to redefine the language. Don't like the $%@ garbage? Fine. You can write a quick library that makes it so $%@ are no longer required.

        You may not want to bother with that, and this is surely something that is easy to abuse, but in a corporate setting the ability to custom-fit your language to the tasks your company will be approaching is surely a huge boon.

        Likewise, the perl 6 regexps are built for expressiveness, not simplicity. If you want simplicity, the perl 5 regexps will still be an *OPTION* in perl6, if you use the :p5 modifier.
      Understand perl6 is unfinished, and it will look much better when it is presented in a clearly written book than when you are reading the languages' half-finished design documents piecemeal. Although your decision to switch to Ruby is certainly a good decision :)
    2. Re:Perl 6 is a mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Ruby doesn't support multilevel inheritence, I prefer Python, but I guess whatever suits your neeeds.

    3. Re:Perl 6 is a mistake by Fweeky · · Score: 3, Informative
      But Ruby doesn't support multilevel inheritence

      Um, yes it does. For instance:

      Fixnum < Integer < Numeric < Object

      It also supports mixin inheritence, in case you want some more exotic inheritence hierachies; class mixes in Module, and Array mixes in Enumerable, for instance.

    4. Re:Perl 6 is a mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, if you write my const int $var = 27;, it won't be valid Perl 6 code. You want my int $var is constant = 27;

    5. Re:Perl 6 is a mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's the first time that an AC post with a link to goatse.cx and references to "BSD is dying" is moderated to +5, Interesting. Hey moderators, just because this guy wrote something you don't understand, it doen't mean it's interesting to everybody.

      I agree that Larry is writing a new language, but there is a better way to say it, without insults and childish remarks.

    6. Re:Perl 6 is a mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mixins in Ruby is superior to the cludges of multiple inheritance. Just make every "class" you create a module first, then mix all your modules into one class if you like ;)

    7. Re:Perl 6 is a mistake by Asprin · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      Sure, my const int $var = 27; may look neat (in the same way that, say, Pascal does), but $var isn't entirely constant, or entirely an integer, it's just a hack which makes it sort of behave like one.

      DUDE DUDE DUDE DUDE DUDE!!!!!

      From the "Pascal" document you referenced in that link up there:
      Why Pascal is Not My Favorite Programming Language

      Brian W. Kernighan, April 2, 1981
      AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974
      ....

      1981?!?!

      I believe you've discovered the OLDEST actively published document on the web!!!

      (P.S. Anyone know if BWK is still alive? What's he doin' these days?)

      --
      "Lawyers are for sucks."
      - Doug McKenzie
    8. Re:Perl 6 is a mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. We have also Perl tools in our department that nobody dares to touch since the hacker who did those has left the company. Now that the tools are my problem I will make sure we will move to Python. The syntax must be clear for people to show any interest in others scripts. And the documentation of scripts ? Well, who seriously expects them to exist?

      Just asking: what can you say to people/managers who are looking for the best solution for a problem ? TIMTOWDI?

      "Perl Culture" ? Cultures die...

    9. Re:Perl 6 is a mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  12. You're part of the problem by shoppa · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Donate to PHP It is better than Perl.

    Yet another bozo on the bus of folks who think that Perl is only good for CGI.

    IMHO Perl will be quite useful long after the web is as obsolete as Gopher. Perl is not just a language, and it's not just for web content; it's a very general and powerful way for thinking about and solving problems.

    1. Re:You're part of the problem by Bytenik · · Score: 1

      I guess that makes you yet another bozo on the bus of folks who think that PHP is only good for CGI.

      It can be used as a generic scripting language too. It can be called stand-alone. No web server required.

      I'm using it as a code generation engine (generating C++ code from XML metadata).

      --

      "Scientists prove we were never here."
      -- Devo

    2. Re:You're part of the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can be used as a generic scripting language too. It can be called stand-alone.

      Can be but isn't.

    3. Re:You're part of the problem by Bytenik · · Score: 1

      Can be but isn't.

      Since I quite clearly stated that I am using it stand-alone, your statement is incorrect. Also, since I was not the one who asked for or implemented the ability for it to run stand-alone, one might reasonably expect that others have been wanting the feature.

      PHP may not currently be widely used as a stand-alone scripting language, but neither was Perl at one time.

      --

      "Scientists prove we were never here."
      -- Devo

    4. Re:You're part of the problem by marnanel · · Score: 1

      IMHO Perl will be quite useful long after the web is as obsolete as Gopher.

      Hey, Perl's good for gopher, too.

      --
      GROGGS: alive and well and living in
    5. Re:You're part of the problem by shades66 · · Score: 1

      Can be but isn't

      Yes it is!. I use perl standalone almost on a daily basis for collecting info from a mainframe and placing in a database. Which in turn is used by perl/CGI for a web front end. Which in turn used by more standalone perl scripts to create the new JCL to run on the mainframe..

      Perl is the only language I found that offerered the needed flexability to do all this and save day's of work.

      Mark.

      --
      ---- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
    6. Re:You're part of the problem by fferreres · · Score: 2

      Can't you read? They are talking about PHP. Perl is widely used for generic scripting and everybody knows that.

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    7. Re:You're part of the problem by fferreres · · Score: 2

      So is PHP, unless you never used it for command line scripting. It's http biased because that's how it was born. But it has much more in it that www stuff.

      I am using it for parsing all emails of a certain domain (an automated email ticketing system. The username is a ticket, not really a username. :-)

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    8. Re:You're part of the problem by shades66 · · Score: 1

      whoops... must of lost track of the threads...

      --
      ---- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
  13. Perl and OO by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 3
    Being OO capable and being an OO language are two very different things. You can do OOP in C -- the GNOME project does it all the time -- but this is a kludge; C was never supposed to support object oriented programming. The same applies to Perl, where OO is a kludge based on hashes. C++, on the other hand, has OOP support built in to the design from the get-go. And then there are truly OO languages like Java, Smalltalk, and Oberon.

    It may be possible to take any language that can compile itself and make it do OO; I'm frankly not sure. I'd hate to see what object-oriented FORTRAN looks like.

    1. Re:Perl and OO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have a look at Fortran 95... it's object-based which means now inheritance but they're getting there.

    2. Re:Perl and OO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want a "true OO" language, take a look at SmallTalk, Simula-67, and Ruby, but please don't include Java in your list. I know some will disagree, but when a number knows how to operate on itself, that's when I consider its environment truly object-oriented.

    3. Re:Perl and OO by medcalf · · Score: 2

      C++ and Objective C were both in fact implemented originally as a set of macros which were converted by the preprocessor into C code. Object orientation is more a way of thinking than anything. Perl uses a method of implementing OO not too dissimilar from early C++ implementations. The key question to ask is this: can I think in an OO way, and code in that way, and have everything work like I expect? I can do that in Perl, Objective C, Java or Smalltalk. I can't do that in C++ - it's just too kludgy of a syntax for me. (I know, I know, this coming from a Perl user!)

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
  14. Not my cup of tea..... by echucker · · Score: 2, Funny

    Larry, Damian, and Dan

    I've always preferred Larry, his borther Darryl, and his other brother Darryl. ;-)

  15. Ryan Air: The Low Fairs Airline by Beautyon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Runs its industrial strength ticketing system on Perl.

    How hard can it be to call the people who maintain it and ask them for the Perl Foundation to email Ryan Air and the other huge companies that rely on Perl for a relatively small donation?

    Have they made these contacts already?

    --
    ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
    1. Re:Ryan Air: The Low Fairs Airline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ryan Air: The Low Fairs Airline Runs its industrial strength ticketing system on Perl.

      How hard can it be to call the people who maintain it and ask them for the Perl Foundation to email Ryan Air and the other huge companies that rely on Perl for a relatively small donation?

      Besides the fact that this would be spam, the reason companies are using free (as in beer) solutions like Perl is that these companies simply don't have the spare cash to spend on software. To use your example, airlines are simply bleeding red ink these days.

    2. Re:Ryan Air: The Low Fairs Airline by Beautyon · · Score: 2

      Besides the fact that this would be spam, the reason companies are using free (as in beer) solutions like Perl is that these companies simply don't have the spare cash to spend on software. To use your example, airlines are simply bleeding red ink [businessweek.com] these days.

      Utter nonsense.

      From the Ryanair website investor relations link: Ryanair are thriving

      "RYANAIR DELIVERS RECORD Q.3 PROFITS DESPITE EFFECTS OF 11TH SEPTEMBER TRAFFIC GROWS BY 30%, PROFI TS RISE BY 35%"

      And contacting Ryanair would not be spam. I am talking about making a phonecall to the people who maintain and who wrote the ticketing application. Only ten to fifteen calls like this would do the trick, and solve the current problem for the foundation.

      --
      ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
    3. Re:Ryan Air: The Low Fairs Airline by Elian · · Score: 1

      I'll give them a call this week.

    4. Re:Ryan Air: The Low Fairs Airline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'll give them a call this week.

      That's a new trend? Instead of directly paying their developpers, Open Source users just beg companies to pay them.

    5. Re:Ryan Air: The Low Fairs Airline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you get Ryanair to give you money - let us all know!! - They can be a bit stingy!

  16. Begging doesn't work by turnstyle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've been providing streaming MP3 software for about 2 years, and had hoped that my 'tryware' approach would work. It doesn't. I have tens of thousands of users, and I've received thousands of positive emails, but I'd say that less than 0.5% ever gave anything.

    You just can't support a full-time effort by relying on generosity. I still offer a free trial, but I now also have commercial versions for sale, and I only wish that I made that move a year ago.

    --
    Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
    1. Re:Begging doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much are you charging for upgrades?

    2. Re:Begging doesn't work by turnstyle · · Score: 1

      Please feel free to contact me via email for info about upgrades and whatnot - I don't want to gum up the thread...

      --
      Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
    3. Re:Begging doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like Andromeda's days could be numbered with the release of this, it looks pretty schweet.

    4. Re:Begging doesn't work by turnstyle · · Score: 1

      Andromeda was designed to be easy-to-use *and* fully-featured at the same time. It auto-configures and doesn't requre a database. It doesn't use Flash or Java. And it has been tweaked and tuned in response to feedback from tens of thousands of users over two years. All I want is that you at least check it out. -Scott

      --
      Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
    5. Re:Begging doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > All I want is that you
      > at least check it out.

      Oh, sorry, I thought your earlier post said you wanted people to trade you some legal tender for copies of it! But I guess you really just wanted to let others know that they could check it out, while sharing your insightful thoughts on making money with free software.

      It just sort of looked like you were advertising, my mistake, eh?

    6. Re:Begging doesn't work by turnstyle · · Score: 1
      When you're trying to support yourself doing what you love, you have to hustle. Really, my point is simply that a lot of people seem to have the impression that all of those PayPal-donate tags actually work.

      Frankly, It's tough for skilled developers to maintain a long-term and time-consuming commitment when there are well-paid alternatives sniffing around the corner.

      If you love some free project, you should toss some coin their way, but in general people won't, and I think more independent developers will soon have no choice but to spend more time trying to figure out how to also make some money from their projects.

      I know, for some people 'money' is a four letter word, but the same people who complain about money also complain about any other approach, such as advertising, etc. etc.

      Ahem, "All we are saying, is give price a chance"

      --
      Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
    7. Re:Begging doesn't work by ivan_13013 · · Score: 1
      [ "All we are saying, is give price a chance" ]

      OK I am rotflmao at that line so give me a second here. :-) ...

      I don't think anyone was complaining about advertising in general, as much as commenting on your use of the /. message boards to advertise your commercial software product. I agree that you have to hustle if you are independant. Keep that business card with you, you never know who you will meet. But advertising on these forums could be interpreted as spam.

      Also, this is not exactly the Artistic License. Maybe your product is worth whatever you're charging, and maybe not. But you're no public service organization:
      You agree not to copy or distribute this software or change the source code without prior written permission ... Unauthorized copying, distribution, modification, public display, or public performance of copyrighted works is an infringement of the copyright holders' rights.
      If you disagree with any of these terms, you are not authorized to use this software...

      [emphasis added]
      Well, I wouldn't donate towards your product development in order to support the community's effort, or to show my distaste for the RIAA's interpretation of copyright law! As another poster suggested, JukeX seems like a much more viable alternative from those perspectives.

      -=Ivan
    8. Re:Begging doesn't work by turnstyle · · Score: 1
      > > [ "All we are saying, is give price a chance" ]
      >
      > OK I am rotflmao at that line so give me a second here. :-)

      See, I'm not all evil ;)

      You've raised two issues: 1) that it seems that I used /. to advertize, and 2) that you have some concerns regarding my license. I'll try and address both...

      Yesterday's threads were in fact personally relevant: a thread on PayPal (which I use to accept payments), a thread on Perl begging for money (which I've found not to work), and a thread on the demise of AudioGalaxy (Andromeda is great for sharing between friends). Granted I included links to my site and some background about what I do, but I stand by what I said. Pehaps the main concern is that I also included links?

      As for my license, so far I've chosen not to GPL Andromeda because it just doesn't seem to make sense for somebody like me - an independent developer working full time, hoping to finally make a modest living off of popular software that I've been developing over two years. And as for the part about honoring copyright, well, it still seems reasonable to me.

      I should also note that I only very recently startred selling copies. For close to two years I asked for donations, but as I said, the fact is that few people follow through. Just ask anybody else doing the same. It doesn't work, and I think it's important for an independent developer to understand that if he's under the impression that such an approach is going to help cover his expenses.

      Still not reasonable?

      --
      Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
    9. Re:Begging doesn't work by ivan_13013 · · Score: 1

      Nah, you're reasonable. I didn't even look at your other posts. But maybe you could put your commercial links/ads in a sig or whatever. Anyhow, keep posting your opinions about being an independant software developer. I've got zero problems with a developer deciding to use whatever licensing terms they like. And keep shamelessly promoting too if you think it's worthwhile, just be subtle.

      [ As for my license, ... the part about honoring copyright, well, it still seems reasonable to me. ]

      Honoring copyright is one thing. But I don't agree that all instances of unauthorized copying/display/etc of copyrighted works necessarily are an infringement of anyone's rights. That kind of 'simplification' is leading to the erosion of fair use rights. And according to your contract, if I disagree with that statement (it is part of the terms) I am not authorized to use the software.

      -=Ivan

    10. Re:Begging doesn't work by turnstyle · · Score: 1
      [ That kind of 'simplification' is leading to the erosion of fair use rights. And according to your contract, if I disagree with that statement (it is part of the terms) I am not authorized to use the software. ]

      I'm of course a big fan of fair use, and I think Andromeda really excells in such circumstances. That bit is intended to say that users are expected to honor the appropriate laws, and to protect me if they choose not to.

      I'd certainly hate to think that somehow I could contribute to the erosion of our rights. Perhaps I can find some better language - feel free to contact me off-thread if you'd like to disccuss. -Scott

      --
      Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
  17. Short answer: no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Isn't there anyone who is profiting from the development of perl, and would get money for various reasons if perl6 were finished?

    Redhat? Mysql AB? Umm.. OSDN?

    Neither Redhat nor OSDN are "profiting" on much of anything recently. MySQL AB may or may not be profiting, but they are a fairly small company and likely have enough trouble working on just one major software project.

  18. I'd port to PHP instead by Wee · · Score: 2, Interesting
    perl/mod_perl was fine back in the early slash days. that was about the best there was. now there's a j2ee environment that provides flexability and feature rich components.

    I definitely agree that mod_perl's time has gone (unless you need to get access to Apcahe's internals -- something most people forget mod_perl can do). And anything based on Mason runs a 95% chance of becoming an unholy nightmare. Perl's time has not yet gone. It's too useful for smaller, everyday things like banging out a quick filter/parser or some such. It's even good for the occasional small CGI script, and I've used it for cross-platform scripting with great success. However, I don't think "porting" Slash to anything Java based is the right way to go.

    If King Slashdot was asking for votes, I'd vote for PHP. The syntax is very similar to Perl's. This means the developers and maintainers have a greatly reduced learning curve. You could almost literally port Perl code function by function to PHP. At the end, you'd wind up with something that looked very similar to the original Perl, but without all the baggage. PHP is at least as fast as mod_perl, and possibly fater than servlets (it has been in at least two cases I've seen). You wouldn't lose speed if you moved from mod_perl to PHP. The development model is very close to Perl's. If you're used to working with mod_perl stuff under Apache, then you'll immediately take to writing PHP apps. If you've administered mod_perl and Apache, then you already know how to administer PHP. With J2EE you get a whole new set of things to look at.

    Anyway, that's my opinion. I've always felt that people should use the right tool for the job, and a part of the "right tool" definition is using what people already know as much as possible (unless it's a learning experience they're after). This is why it's good to know a lot of different technologies: you can apply the right tool at will (shell scripts instead of Perl, Java over Tk, whatever). If the Slash developers don't already know either PHP or Java, then they can most quickly get started with PHP, partially satisfying that "what you know" bit. The curve would be much more steep with Java.

    However, the bottom line is that Perl seems to work fine for Slashdot, so likely there's no reason to fix it.

    -B

    --

    Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

    1. Re:I'd port to PHP instead by medcalf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why port at all? Slashcode obviously works, and scales really well. Porting would at best be make-work, unless there's some really necessary feature that can't be implemented without rearchitecting the entire codebase.

      And if the coders have that much time on their hands, they can fire a few people and cut down on the amount of advertising they do to support the staff overhead.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    2. Re:I'd port to PHP instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      go back and read the last sentence of your post's parent

    3. Re:I'd port to PHP instead by laserjet · · Score: 2

      For the same reason I take things apart to see how they work and then don't put them back together correctly so they never work again!

      --
      Moon Macrosystems. Sun's biggest competitor.
    4. Re:I'd port to PHP instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I definitely agree that mod_perl's time has gone

      Although I see you have no coherent argument to back up this claim.

      And anything based on Mason runs a 95% chance of becoming an unholy nightmare.

      Is that because it mixes HTML and code, like PHP does?

      If King Slashdot was asking for votes, I'd vote for PHP. The syntax is very similar to Perl's.

      Except that it's missing many of the "programming-in-the-large" features that make Perl a good choice for large projects like Slash.

      You could almost literally port Perl code function by function to PHP.

      Except that PHP is missing the great free libraries from CPAN that make Slash possible.

      At the end, you'd wind up with something that looked very similar to the original Perl, but without all the baggage.

      And the "baggage" is what in this case? Mature concepts of variable scoping and packaging?

      PHP is at least as fast as mod_perl, and possibly fater than servlets

      Since mod_perl is faster than servlets (yes, a correctly written mod_perl module that displays data from Oracle runs faster than Resin's Java servlet container doing the same thing), I would hope that PHP would be too. If you remove features, it does tend to make things go faster. There is more to life than runtime speed though. If there weren't, we'd all be writing in assembly.

    5. Re:I'd port to PHP instead by mark_lybarger · · Score: 1

      1. maintenance cost.

      2. ease of adding lots of new features.

      3. ease of interacting with other web based "applications"

      sure it "works" now, and will continue to work this way in the future the way it currently does, but porting to newer technologies allows the "business" to grow quickly and to adapt to an ever changing environment.

    6. Re:I'd port to PHP instead by medcalf · · Score: 2
      sure it "works" now, and will continue to work this way in the future the way it currently does, but porting to newer technologies allows the "business" to grow quickly and to adapt to an ever changing environment.

      Having managed a number of technology projects for businesses, I'd be very skeptical of such arguments until presented with concrete examples of where the code base as it stands is causing me to lose potential business. In real life, the conversion costs are huge, and the benefits rarely exist at all. Where they do exist, they tend to be small and hard to capture.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    7. Re:I'd port to PHP instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you my friend do not know what you are talking about. i suggest obtaining a few year's experience in each of those technologies before offering an objective opinion. what makes you think mod_perl's time is over? that's crazy.

  19. We'll pay twice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we continue to fund Perl through Perl6, we'll pay twice. Once for those visionless bone-heads to develop it and once to re-learn how to code in Perl and port our apps when our CTO decides that "newer is better" and mandates an upgrade. I say leave them high and dry, scrap the Perl6 code and lets just write into Perl5.5 what we want or really need. The reason Perl6 is so screwed up is because they had to make us feel as if we were getting something for our money the LAST time we funded them.

    1. Re:We'll pay twice! by fferreres · · Score: 2

      Just curious. How much did you fund them last time?

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
  20. If I donate... by scott1853 · · Score: 4, Funny

    will Larry personally convert all my existing code so it will work under Perl 6?

    1. Re:If I donate... by PissingInTheWind · · Score: 1
      will Larry personally convert all my existing code so it will work under Perl 6?

      Yes!
      Well, almost: a p5 to p6 converter will be available. It's really at the base of perl6 of having an automatic converter for perl5 scripts.

      Also, with the perl6 interpreter you will be able to add a "use perl5;" pragma, so you'll only have to add a line to your scripts if you don't want them automatically converted.

      --

      A message from the system administrator: 'I've upped my priority. Now up yours.'
    2. Re:If I donate... by swm · · Score: 2

      Yes.

      One of the express design goals of Perl6 is full backward compatability with Perl5 code.

      One of the reasons that Perl6 is happening now is that the technology to do this was proven out over the last few years through the work done on the Perl B::* modules.

  21. Is this a bad thing? by paulkilroy · · Score: 0, Troll

    Perl and its type-unsafe friends are a dime-a-dozen. I think we will all survive it it goes into unmaintained land.

    --
    - lather - rinse - repeat -
  22. Perl 6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is what people fail to realize about Perl 6.

    The entire purpose of the current Perl 6 development is to generalize Perl.

    In other words, Wall et all saw that Perl was being used for purposes it was never, ever intended for, and are seeking to make a more flexible yet consistent tool, one that can be used for the crazy-ass things people use it for without being stretched to the breaking point.

    This is what the money will go toward if you send something to the perl foundation funds. Fixing the mess that perl has become. Wall is very open about this.

    Part of this is that the language has become simply huge, but you have to understand that they're expecting third parties-- makers of libraries and development tools-- to offer an environment in which that huge layered monstrosity can be cut down, and you can be left with just the subset of Perl's possibility that is left for you. Think of this like quake 3 and doom 3; they looks beautiful, they aren't very useful all on their own, and they are mostly platforms for other developers to start with so that they can make something insanely great very quickly.

    In short, i would say that donating to perl 6 really does help more in the long run-- because instead of directly helping one little projects, you are indirectly helping many, many little projects to reach their goals quicker and better than they could have otherwise. You are donating to something for the little projects to build on.

    (P.S.: expect to see some new form of use strict; (one which does strong type checking and lots of other things to let you reign in perl's extreme expressiveness to the point you are always sure what you are doing) become very popular in the enterprise once Perl 6 has settled..)

    1. Re:Perl 6 by PythonOrRuby · · Score: 1
      (P.S.: expect to see some new form of use strict; (one which does strong type checking and lots of other things to let you reign in perl's extreme expressiveness to the point you are always sure what you are doing) become very popular in the enterprise once Perl 6 has settled..)

      Strong type checking in Perl 6 is built right in, and types and classes will be unified, so that an object can be declared as being of a certain class.

      my int $foo = 42;

  23. What Do We Get If We Donate? by Carnage4Life · · Score: 5, Funny
    I'd like to contribute to the Perl Foundation but would first like to see if they have oportunity for sponsorship opportunities a la sports stadiums in the US.

    Basically I'd like to find out what level of contribution it would take to
    • Have my name introduced as an operator in the language.
    • Make whitespace significant to syntax
    • Rename it from Perl to "Carnage4Life: Scripting Edition"
    • Add C++ templates to the language.
    • Include the fuck() and unfuck() function calls that do exactly that.
    I await the answers to these questions with bated breath.
    1. Re:What Do We Get If We Donate? by twoshortplanks · · Score: 5, Interesting
      • Have my name introduced as an operator in the language.
        package Carnage4Life;
        require Exporter;
        @ISA = qw(Exporter);
        @EXPORT = qw(Carnage4Life);
        sub Carnage4Life { print "It's all been done" }
      • Make whitespace significant to syntax

        See this module

      • Rename it from Perl to "Carnage4Life: Scripting Edition
        ln -s "/usr/bin/Carnage4Life: Scripting Edition" "/usr/bin/perl"
      • Add C++ templates to the language.

        Perl uses run time polymorphasim, and hence doesn't use a Templating system for code. Or maybe you could just run the C++ code inline

      • Include the fuck() and unfuck() function calls that do exactly that.

        Is something that deletes all your source code and still continues to run it close enough?

      Did you laugh? Okay, go donate!

      Seriously though, these are all silly examples. Perl's used for a lot of sensible stuff. The biggest mistake most people make is mistaking humour like this for a lack of professionalism

      --
      -- Sorry, I can't think of anything funny to say here.
    2. Re:What Do We Get If We Donate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C++ style templates for perl would kick serious ass.

    3. Re:What Do We Get If We Donate? by stikves · · Score: 1
      ln -s "/usr/bin/Carnage4Life: Scripting Edition" "/usr/bin/perl"

      It should have been:

      ln -s /usr/bin/perl "/usr/bin/Carnage4Life: Scripting Edition"
    4. Re:What Do We Get If We Donate? by twoshortplanks · · Score: 2
      Of course! I always make that mistake. For some reason my brain always wants to say what it's linking to first (though I understand why it's this way - so that you can link to files in another directory without stating their name again.)

      Of course, I should really have used Perl's symlink command ;-)

      --
      -- Sorry, I can't think of anything funny to say here.
    5. Re:What Do We Get If We Donate? by stikves · · Score: 1
      Ok. Let me make it easier to you.

      ln works the same way as cp command.

      [ It also confused me for long. After all we are all programmers, and expect result:= expression; format. (Or was it 10 A$ = "Test" ) ]

  24. Ask yourself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For 18 months of Damian and half a year of Dan and Larry... what has been produced? What finished products can we take back to our workplace and use?

    Mailing list traffic? Apocalypses/Exegeses? Acme::*? A lot of travel time and expenses? Lectures given in far away cities to a few hundred perl hackers?

    Half a design for a language nobody really begged for?

    1. Re:Ask yourself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yesterday i donated $500 to the perl foundation.

      i've just recently read (and re-read) all of larry wall's "apocalypses" (while on vacation) and got a lot out of them. some great ideas in there. i fully intend on stealing some of them. :)

      i'm looking forward to perl6 very much.

    2. Re:Ask yourself... by babbage · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You're right -- 30 man-months of effort, 18 months of calendar time -- has yet to produce a completed version of Perl6. But you know what? I wasn't along for this part of the ride, but according to Damian, it took maybe two or three years for iterations 2 & 3 of Perl, and four or five years to produce versions 4 & 5. That was all with volunteer effort.

      Perl6 is arguably more complex than versions 1-5 combined, and yet it is coming along at a faster clip than any of the earlier iterations did -- largely because, yes, people have donated money so that these three very talented language designers can attack the problem more or less full time. It's foolish to expect this generation of Perl, as complex as it is, to come out in 1/4 the time that the most recent versions took. On the contrary, if it takes "only" 5 years, we can be glad that it arrived as soon as it did thanks to the full-time work these guys have been able to put in.

      Also, it's worth noting that Perl has always been one of the first "mainstream" languages to bring features from special purpose academic languages to a wider audience, and Perl6 is a strong continuation of this history. Most people are probably unaware of constructs like regular expressions [version??], closures [Perl5], co-routines, currying functions, and continuations [all Perl6], so why would you expect masses of people to be "begging" for them? And yet once these features get implemented in Perl, they've had a tendency to start being demanded in other languages too -- witness Java recently adopting Perl-esque regexes, even as the Perl6 regex design is evolving away from simple pattern matching engine and into a more sophisticated grammar recognizing parser like Parse::RecDescent, lex, or yacc/bison.

      So really, this kind of comment is nothing but trollbait, and I'm falling for it. Perl6, even half-fleshed out, is a tremendous leap forward compared to Perl5, and I for one feel lucky to have these guys focusing on it. In spite of your naked assertion at the end there, the RFC process that kicked off Perl6 development -- with well over 300 well thought out documents that took months for Larry to properly analyze -- well proves that people *were* begging for change, and slowly but surely it is happening. I hope that some magician can produce the funds to keep the Perl6 roadshow on the road, because within a couple of years I want to be able to use this wonderful new version of Perl. If the show ends now, it'll be years longer before Perl6 ever sees the light of day...

    3. Re:Ask yourself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Perl6 is arguably more complex than versions 1-5 combined, and yet it is coming along at a faster clip than any of the earlier iterations did -- largely because, yes, people have donated money so that these three very talented language designers can attack the problem more or less full time.

      LOL. I would have said "hackers".

      Also, it's worth noting that Perl has always been one of the first "mainstream" languages to bring features from special purpose academic languages to a wider audience, and Perl6 is a strong continuation of this history.

      Sure. Following the same ideas, I must be also extremely thankful for all Microsoft innovations (like swapping, preemptive multitasking, windowing system, debuggers, networking API, web browser, ...).

      And yet once these features get implemented in Perl, they've had a tendency to start being demanded in other languages too -- witness Java recently adopting Perl-esque regexes,

      Come on... Safe for those regexes (inherited from the Unix tools, and improved - but which belong to a library), no one cares about Perl when it comes to language design! It's seems that Larry Wall has discovered Scheme, and ML lately... very fine, but those were already here two decades ago and all serious language designers know their properties since long ago.

    4. Re:Ask yourself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      very fine, but those were already here two decades ago and all serious language designers know their properties since long ago.

      The fact that all serious language designers are well aware of how ML works doesn't change the fact that people just don't want to use ML and scheme for random general purpose work. Can you really say that you don't know a large number of people who when you ask them about Scheme or ML, go "Yeah, i looked at it, it's really cool, i wish i could use it for something sometime" but have never written any actual code in it?

      What the perl6 people are doing is taking an existing but arcane set of ideas and implementing them in such a way that the masses will find them accessible, find them useful, and want to use them. This is not what Microsoft did, it is what Apple did.

      What Microsoft did was take an existing but kind of expensive set of ideas, implement them so that they were really cheap and ran on really, really cheap, common hardware, and marketed them militiantly to the business-oriented mindset until these ideas were widely accepted.

    5. Re:Ask yourself... by Elian · · Score: 1
      Parrot's been produced. While it's not yet finished, it is functional enough to work with, and work on. See the Parrotcode website for more details, or grab a snapshot.

      Yes, the parrotcode website needs a bit of an overhaul--that was in progress when the slashdot splash hit.... :)

    6. Re:Ask yourself... by Weird+Dave · · Score: 1
      If you'd ever met Damian Conway, you'd know better. You probably didn't ever notice how many CPAN modules Dr. Conway created and maintains, or consider how much thought he's put into what is done. He literally doesn't have enough time in the day to perform all the improvements he wants.

      I've never met Dan or Larry, but I've met Damian, and I can, with all sincerity, tell you to go fuck yourself!

      --

      Grumble, Grumble
    7. Re:Ask yourself... by thoughtstream · · Score: 5, Informative

      For 18 months of Damian and half a year of Dan and Larry... what has been produced?

      I'll let Larry and Dan speak for themselves, but as for myself: in the eighteen months I was supported by the Perl community I produced the following...

      • Released 55 significant updates to 21 CPAN modules...
      • ...including 16 entirely new modules...
      • ...5 of which were subsequently considered important enough to be included in the Perl 5.8 core distribution;
      • Wrote four extended documents (Exegeses 2,3,4 and Synopsis 5) explaining the Perl 6 design;
      • Wrote a Perl Journal article on the practicalities of porting Perl 5 code to Perl 6;
      • Developed a 125 page alternative design for a future Perl (named Perl 5+i), much of which has fed back into the Perl 6 design process;
      • Wrote several articles for various Perl community channels like use.perl;
      • Added 88 discussion nodes to the Perl Monks website;
      • Posted 192 responses to messages posted on the comp.lang.perl.* newsgroups;
      • Replied to over 5000 Perl-related email messages;
      • Gave 167 hours of presentations on 56 Perl topics in 21 different cities in 9 countries on 4 continents.

      What finished products can we take back to our workplace and use?
      These, for a start...
      • Attribute::Handlers
      • Attribute::Handlers::Prospective
      • Attribute::Types
      • Class::Delegation
      • Filter::Simple
      • Getopt::Declare
      • Hook::LexWrap
      • Inline::Files
      • Lingua::EN Inflect
      • NEXT
      • Parse::RecDescent
      • Perl6::Currying
      • Perl6::Placeholders
      • Perl6::Variables
      • Regexp::Common
      • Switch
      • Text::Balanced
      • Text::Reform

      Mailing list traffic?
      Yes. That's where the community converses.

      Apocalypses/Exegeses?
      Yes. Designing Perl 6 was the main job we were asked to do.

      Acme::*?
      Sure. Play is where the community coheres.

      A lot of travel time...
      Yes. Too much. 28 weeks apart from my family. :-(
      ...and expenses?
      Surprisingly, not. Over 100,000 miles of travel and 200 nights of accommodation. All for about $50 a day and $0.20 per mile.

      Lectures given in far away cities...
      Yes, exotic remote places such as New York, London, Dallas/Fort Worth, Toronto, Chicago, Bonn, and Silicon Valley. ;-)
      ...to a few hundred perl hackers?
      Over 10,000 in total.

      Half a design for a language...
      Considerably more than half, I'd estimate. Most of the really hard bits, and quite a lot of the rest.
      ...nobody really begged for?
      Begged? No. Why should they beg?

      But hundreds of extraordinary individuals and organizations did collectively donate over $210,000 in the last 18 months to ensure that the work we were doing would continue. And donations more than doubled in the second 9 months of fund-raising.

      I had always assumed that was because the community approved of what we were doing.

      Damian
    8. Re:Ask yourself... by gorilla · · Score: 2

      I had always assumed that was because the community approved of what we were doing. Speaking as someone who will be seeing you give another lecture tonight, I certainly approve of what you were doing.

  25. Re:Perl sux0rz by ftobin · · Score: 2

    Seriously, when you first read that book (as I have), you first think "Wow, look at these cool hacks Perl can do to simulate OO". However, after you use a language like Python for a while, you see what real OO can do, especially with its recently unified types and metaclasses.

    I was a strong Perl programmer for 4 years, but now I use Python, and it'd ridiculous to even try to compare Perl's OO to something like Python's.

  26. Traffic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe if Larry, Damian, and Dan would lay off the fucking cocaine we'd still be in grantland.


  27. So what? by mattypants · · Score: 0, Troll


    Perl looks like an explosion in an ASCII factory - who is really going to miss it? Certainly not anyone who has had to maintain stuff written by someone who was trying to protect their job!

    I hope it withers on the vine.

    1. Re:So what? by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      who is really going to miss it?

      I suspect you have never really used Perl. Maybe had to maintain some newbies code or something like that, but that is extent of your experience with Perl.

      Lets look at it this way. I propose that C provides more ways to code illegible than Perl. You can write horrible partitioned code, relying on precedence of operations, use lots of global data, recursively loading include files, using multi deep redirection when not necessary. Perl on the other hand has a some "features" that allow a coder to clarify their work, such as variable interpolation so that string concatentation looks cleaner

      $str = "Time is $time in the $day day of the $month month.

      vs

      str = "Time is " + time + "in the " + day + "day of the " + month + " month".

      Or the use of operators such as "unless", "or", "foreach", etc

      Or the use of named parameters in function calls

      Or the use of symbolic references.

      Or use of the comments in reg expression.

      I suspect the reg expression are the chief reason for your compliant on "ASCII explosion". Reg expression is a language of its own but knowledge of reg expression is pure power, it is compact expression where a single expression represents pages of code.

      IMHO I love the intergral inclusion of reg expressions within the langauge framework. It is one Perl's strength. Without it would just be another "for,if,else,while,goto" language

    2. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Perl looks like an explosion in an ASCII factory"

      LoL That's been exactly my impression. I just never came up with such an appropriate & colorful metaphor!

      "Certainly not anyone who has had to maintain stuff written by someone who was trying to protect their job!"

      I'm in this situation right now. Ugh.I can't imagine a more obfuscated language. Give me Python any day!

  28. A clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My purpose in asking whether anyone was getting money out of Perl was not that i was saying Perl was useless.

    I was merely saying, are there not people who are profiting from having perl as a free tool? Why are they not contributing to the Perl foundation fund?

    I realized later that this may have been unclear, and i apologize. I am glad to see at least the replies i've had so far realized what i meant :)

  29. interesting you mention MS by dybvandal · · Score: 1

    since they use Perl for their testing framework .. they could step up and donate? dunno ... maybe they already do ..?

    1. Re:interesting you mention MS by J.+Random+Software · · Score: 1

      Didn't Microsoft pay ActiveState to port Perl to Win32 in the first place, just so a few more people would take IIS seriously?

  30. No More Buffer Overflow Exploits by Morris+Schneiderman · · Score: 1

    You ask "what's left to do?"

    How about a perl processor that handles buffer overflows safely. Not glamorous, but very practical.

  31. Not Just For Perl Development by twoshortplanks · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The money is also being used to develop parrot, "a virtual machine used to efficiently execute bytecode for interpreted languages".

    Essentially this is the new virtual machine Perl 6 will be targeting (what Perl 6 will be compiled into before it is run.) But Perl will not be the only language that will run on this. People are working on making Python, PHP and even Java run on this same machine. It's about working together people.

    Oh, I know it's much more fun to say "nah ne nah nah, my language is better than yours". But the Perl people want to work in an interoperable world where we can all code stuff in whatever language we want and it'll all work together. And this is their effort.

    Now if you want to slam this down and winge, then it's up to you and I'm sure I'll waste my time reading your comments. However, if you want to actually do something about this kind of thing, you know where the donate button is.

    --
    -- Sorry, I can't think of anything funny to say here.
  32. Re: Perl for windows distributions by ubiquitin · · Score: 1


    http://www.activestate.com

    --
    http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
  33. Where did you learn math? by Marc2k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    $200,000 = total amount raised over 2 years

    Damian was given a grant over an 18 month span.
    Dan over 6.
    Larry over 6.

    18 + 6 + 6 = 30

    200,000 / 30 = $6,666.67 per programmer month WITHOUT any expenses whatsoever.

    even that is 80,000 per year (again with no expenses, individual or organizational), which is not that far off for senior programmers, a lot less in reality, considering they have experience overseeing large software projects.

    --
    --- What
    1. Re:Where did you learn math? by Mandrake · · Score: 2

      that also doesn't include the overhead for running everything. accounting, travel, etc - all these things add up quickly.

      --
      Geoff "Mandrake" Harrison
      Some Random UI Hacker
    2. Re:Where did you learn math? by dinotrac · · Score: 2

      Even less, depending on whether its being paid on a 1099 contract basis or a W2 basis.
      If being paid directly as a contract, you've got to shrink it by 7% to account for the so-called "employer's share" of Social Security.

    3. Re:Where did you learn math? by Elian · · Score: 1

      This is all 1099 work, so we're responsible for all the taxes. Also don't forget that 20% of the grant is dedicated to travel and outreach, and we're also responsible for paying the health insurance and other things that we'd otherwise get through an employer.

    4. Re:Where did you learn math? by dinotrac · · Score: 2

      Yeah. When you take that all into account, you guys are working on the cheap. Thanks.

  34. i agree with this post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi guys. WELL today it's official. My MCSE certificate came in the mail! i'm jonesin!! So I feel as though I have some qualifications to comment here. Why anyone would want to choose an unsupported, open sorse scripting language like PEARL is beyond me. In Windows we have batch file scripting and you know you can use and trust this method of getting tasks done because Microsoft supports it. The few times I've tried PEARL it was a fucking nightmare! what the fuck is up with all those dollar signs and shit. Sometimes I like to just throw a CD into my player, for example Manham Steamroller ,, and throw together a batch file to do something neat. And i know if there's a problem I can just clal Microsoft, give them my credit card number, and it will all be taken care of. Cant say that about larry wall, who at any given time might be out molesting a camel . Microsoft is always there so guys its clear. PEARL is dying

    1. Re:i agree with this post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not funny and way too gross for a troll.

    2. Re:i agree with this post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trolls ain't funny. This post was.

    3. Re:i agree with this post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is such a pathetic post. Go read a few real computer science books instead of MS manuals.

  35. Money where my mouth is by catfood · · Score: 2

    I'd been procrastinating this long enough. Thanks for the warning.

    My $100.00 contribution just went in a minute ago.

    1. Re:Money where my mouth is by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Same here, I been feeling the guilt.

      From now on when I bid a project and the project uses Perl I will include a $50.00 surcharge to add to the fund.

    2. Re:Money where my mouth is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess Barnum was right.

    3. Re:Money where my mouth is by catfood · · Score: 2

      Yeah, worst case I spend a hundred bucks and I get to use Perl all I want. I feel like such a sucker.

  36. Guess they'll have to do it for the Love now by syntap · · Score: 1

    Like the rest of us non-compensated OSS developers :)

  37. I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Create a great OSS Product.

    2. Beg for money.

    3. Show a profit.

    The missing part of the expression.

  38. Remindes me of PBS by shemnon · · Score: 1

    This seriously reminds me of PBS pledge-a-thons, where they break in the middle of a program you are actually watching on PBS and say "our pledge goal for this break is 25 new pledges" and they won't re-start the program until they get the 25 pledges. That's the point at which I switch to TLC or The Discovery Channel.

    An additude like this is re-writing the social contract perl was distribured on, and it's artistic licence. If people start a campaign like this it will motivate people to say screw perl, I'm going to python or ruby.

    It's like saying that everyone who drives by a beautiful piece of public art must now pay for that privledge or the art will be taken down.

    --
    --Shemnon
    1. Re:Remindes me of PBS by Beautyon · · Score: 2

      It's like saying that everyone who drives by a beautiful piece of public art must now pay for that privledge or the art will be taken down.

      Rubbish.

      Ryan Air have benefitted enormously thanks to Perl, and it would be good of them(reg) to simply say "thank you" to the developers by paying a small amount to aid in the further development of Perl.

      Perhaps, the proceeds from one fully booked flight between Paris and London?

      If they do not do this, Perl isnt going to be withdrawn as in your example, and because the source is available, someone else can always pick up the task.

      Companies give billions away each year to charity. Why not give what is comparitivley an extremely small amount to developers so that the world can run free software?

      Free software is as worthy a cause as any to support.

      --
      ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
  39. RMS Has the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, sorry, you can't all get jobs at a university that protects you from the realizations of the real world?

    I suppose they could try getting real jobs, and produce the code on their free time.

    Or, they could get real jobs, and since information wants to be free, and there is no work involved in writing the code, they could just wait for the code to materialize. If one person could think of it, then some one else will think of it, and not mind doing it for free.

    I knew RMS would have the answer. He is so smart, and an economic genius.

  40. Shameless Plug... but related to donations... by pheph · · Score: 1

    Hello all,
    I currently do work for a website that sells Open Source computer hardware and donatates a significant part of the profit to Open Source and Open Source related projects of the user's own choosings. If you'd like to check it out, check out Open Soars.
    Thanks,
    -Scott

  41. Isn't Slashcode written in Perl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or Bitkeeper, for that matter?

  42. Shakedown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It looks like the grants to fund: Larry, Damian, and Dan have pretty much run out. :(" Keeping guys like these working on Perl is definitely a good thing(tm) if you are looking to support the Open Source Community somehow. You can donate here if you are feeling generous.

    Bloody hell, where do you get off shaking us down for loot? I remember days when people contributed to these projects in their spare time, you know, when they weren't working for a living. I shudder to think what the state of computing would be without hackers (classic definition) willing to contribute their talent free of charge. If you want to "support the Open Source Community somehow," I'd suggest spending some of your own time.

  43. Re:Perl sux0rz by deepsky · · Score: 1

    Yes, there is a book about object-oriented perl. The book is very good, too. Damien Conway did a pretty good job; the book is well written and even funny at times. Unfortunately, it is the concept itself which is dreadful. Perl has not been designed as an OO language, and it shows. The typical idea in this book is something on the line of: "{awful tangle of perl concepts and syntax} is nothing but a {OOP concept}, if you think for a moment about it".
    I bought the book with my best intentions. I like perl, I use it a lot, and I like the way Conway writes. I really WANTED to add OOP to my perl. I tried, but I found OO perl to be beyond my threshold of self-defense. It is just TOO convoluted.
    I recongnize that, on an intellectual level, adding OOP to Perl without breaking anything has been a really remarkable result. But understanding and using it is another matter... If you really want OOP, I suspect you'd better look elsewhere. Java maybe?

    Just my little experience :)

  44. Have 'em apply to linuxfund by Zachary+DeAquila · · Score: 1

    Have 'em apply to the linuxfund. Sure it may not be *all* their funding but it could help...

    --Z

  45. OSS: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use our software for free, and our lawyers won't harass you, just the beggars will.

    Maybe they will call them at dinner time to ask for donations also.

  46. parrotcode question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting...will the spec be made public so authors of their own language will be able to target it (without some screening for "worthiness")?

    1. Re:parrotcode question by Elian · · Score: 1

      Yes, of course. The specification's documented (albeit a bit fuzzily, but we're working on that) in the parrot distribution. There are already several language implementations for Parrot which are included with the kit, and there are other projects (I know of one to port Ruby) in the works to target Parrot.

  47. I know the feeling.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like the grants to fund: Larry, Damian, and Dan have pretty much run out.

    Yeah, my grant for sluffing off and sleeping all day ran out as well, I could use some more handouts if anyone is feeling generous (ok, very generous) :)

  48. yoo hoo, moderators by bcrowell · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    Whoah, moderators, did any of you actually read the last two paragraphs of this post??? The gratuitous link to goat sex? The vulgar insults? If there was ever a post in need of -5, flamebait or -5, overrated, this is it. Too bad this jerk posted AC, so I can't put him on my foes list...

    The content of the post that is actually about Perl is also not that insightful. He seems to have completely missed one of the main important things about Perl 6, which is the use of the Parrot VM.

  49. OOP == Big? (was: Perl 6 is a mistake) by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    There is an assumption in that message that OOP is the only or best way to make/manage large projects.

    While I am not a Perl fan (but I respect personal preferences) there is no fricken evidence that OOP works better for large projects. Ed Yourdon has done surveys, and did not find a higher success rate for OOP.

    I keep asking precisely how OO "scales better", and ask for code examples where procedural/relational allegedly falls down, and get nothing except vague mantra about "encapsulation" and "abstraction" that is never translated into black and white benefits in code or human effort metrics (except maybe bad procedural skills on display in the comparison).

    It is true that *some* people may "think better" in OOP, but others may think better in Perl or whatever. Modeling one's head and modeling the needs of the external world are not necessarily the same thing. You can argue that OOP better models your *own* head, but don't extrapolate that to external benefits without some open evidence.

    oop.ismad.com

    1. Re:OOP == Big? (was: Perl 6 is a mistake) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I keep asking precisely how OO "scales better", and ask for code examples where procedural/relational allegedly falls down, and get nothing except vague mantra about "encapsulation" and "abstraction" that is never translated into black and white benefits in code or human effort metrics (except maybe bad procedural skills on display in the comparison).

      Where have you been in the last 10 years? What makes OO powerful is basically the ability of putting a whole lot of messy code behind a small interface. Hide all the code behind hundred of interfaces, and little at a time, improve it in the general direction you want. It's called "refactoring". Of course, design patterns also help.

    2. Re:OOP == Big? (was: Perl 6 is a mistake) by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (* What makes OO powerful is basically the ability of putting a whole lot of messy code behind a small interface. Hide all the code behind hundred of interfaces, and little at a time, improve it in the general direction you want. *)

      *Small* interface? Bwaaaa haa haaa!

      Interfaces can be built just fine without OO.

      I will believe the OO hype when I see side-by-side biz app code of OO kicking procedural/relational's butt in code size, change-impact analysis, or whatever good metric you want to use.

      (* It's called "refactoring". *)

      "Refactoring" is a euphemism for "cleaning up the code because it did not change as easily as the OO brochure promised".

      (* design patterns also help. *)

      Do you think OO has a monopoly on "patterns"? The p/r versions of GOF patterns are usually far simpler IMO.

      (* Where have you been in the last 10 years? *)

      Listening to unproven bullshOOt.

      oop.ismad.com

    3. Re:OOP == Big? (was: Perl 6 is a mistake) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Interfaces can be built just fine without OO.

      Yes, but it's easier to associate them with the data - otherwise you have the burden to get the correct code working on the correct data.

      "Refactoring" is a euphemism for "cleaning up the code because it did not change as easily as the OO brochure promised"

      No. Refactoring means "all code changes one day", and "designs done on the paper has always several parts that utterly fail when trying to implement". Keeping also in mind that 70% of the work is maintenance (not to mention test), refactoring means that you set up a powerful working method. Not only, refactoring address directly the problem of change.

      Mind you, have I zero problem with changing, updating, adding extensions, re-designing my part of the code. It takes time, but I am 100% sure to complete. I have total control of the possible changes of the code, and I do changes step-by-step in a perfectly assured and relaxed way. Sometimes the last step of changes proove too big and not worthwhile - I roll back my CVS branch. I have always I clear view of all the my parts of the project, knowing which alternative designs and organisations I didn't choose (but could if changes required it), which part of the code/design has to be refactored, which part is likely to have to be refactored but is not worthwhile yet, and which part is clean considering current constraints.

      Obviously, if you don't master this technique, by considering which is in most code the singlest most important of aspect designing and coding FIRST - change, then you don't understand anything to the power of OO.

    4. Re:OOP == Big? (was: Perl 6 is a mistake) by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* Yes, but it's easier to associate them with the data - otherwise you have the burden to get the correct code working on the correct data. *)

      I disagree. OO *over*-couples data to given behavior; their real-world association is much looser and dynamic than OO doctrine dictates.

      (* refactoring address directly the problem of change. *)

      That is because refactoring *is* change. My euphemism suggestion still stands.

      (* Obviously, if you don't master this technique, by considering which is in most code the singlest most important of aspect designing and coding FIRST - change, then you don't understand anything to the power of OO. *)

      I perfectly agree that "being a student of change" is important to good software engineering. I just disagree that OOP is the best way to acheive it. It is a doctrine that *assumes* certain patterns of change, and I simply find these patterns in error (WRT frequency of occurance). OO's approach to change management is simply wrong because it over-emphasizes change patterns that it is good at and ignores those it is not.

      OO fans accept the doctrine of what the change patterns are, and just write-off non-fitters of such patterns as "just some refactoring work".

      One should observe the patterns of change first, and *then* apply a solution, not the other way around. OO tries to force-fit the two.

    5. Re:OOP == Big? (was: Perl 6 is a mistake) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I disagree. OO *over*-couples data to given behavior; their real-world association is much looser and dynamic than OO doctrine dictates.

      It's only true if you have specific flat data that can be used in other cases. If you have a 3D model of an environment, then an adaptative mesh conversion, and later use a physics/finite elements engine for meshes, your data is either 1) the objects offered 2) a minor variation of the objects 3) major additions to previous objects 4) a major change. I.e. in all cases your issue doesn't exist, or is overweighted by a major change. If you don't want to use the "meshWorld = world.toMesh()" method, but toy with non-mesh data, you have to rewrite yourself the whole "adaptative" part which guaranted you a bounded error, and the whole physics engine. Anyway, safe from just taking the parse tree of the 3D definition of your models, and rewriting everything else, I don't see how you can reuse data... In this case, the code (and the expertise behind the code) is at least an order of magnitude more important than the internal organization of the data - indeed it could be data behind wrappers, that doesn't matter, since those wrappers are thin in comparison of the code.
      At the same time, if you don't go OO, you are over-tying code to *code*... i.e. instead of "object.toMesh()" you'd have "objectToMesh(object)", and then you would have to propagate stupid tests when half of the objects has one kind of "toMesh" methods, and the other half changes to another kind of toMesh. This is especially true if you are in the middle of a refactoring - you don't expect to change all the toMesh methods (and whatever other changes those implies - leading to the classical "perform ALL changes at the same time - and face the hundred of new bugs introduced when testing 3 month later") at the same time, do you?

      (* refactoring address directly the problem of change. *)
      That is because refactoring *is* change. My euphemism suggestion still stands

      Yes, refactoring is change. It's a feature. People doing refactoring are the masters of change. Now, you can target something else ; for instance, people using functional languages are the masters at proving code - I'm mean "formally proving".

      I perfectly agree that "being a student of change" is important to good software engineering. I just disagree that OOP is the best way to acheive it. It is a doctrine that *assumes* certain patterns of change, and I simply find these patterns in error (WRT frequency of occurance).

      It assumes that data and/or code can be changed. Data is accessed behind interface ; one can freely change 1) internals of data, 2) internals of code. Basically, it means you can make more changes, having to change less code. I don't see how you change less code in procedural code.

      In addition, since interfaces can be small, you get the added bonus of numerous short summaries of methods grouped together - this is not objvious when you write your own code, but definitly is when you take code from others.

      OO fans accept the doctrine of what the change patterns are, and just write-off non-fitters of such patterns as "just some refactoring work".

      Huh? Which change pattern is assumed? By grouping toghether data and code applied on it, you make least assumptions. Since if you change data, *at least* the code intimate with it will have to be changed anyway [the methods], and if you change the code, the data you're mostly likely to change is the data this code is using. But at least, you have a chance of not letting the changes spread, like fire, to the whole program - OO is compartmenting fire with many fire doors, in an area where you want to start many fires.

      One should observe the patterns of change first, and *then* apply a solution, not the other way around. OO tries to force-fit the two.

      Huh? When I change a program, I keep in mind what changes were made, what were predicted, what are now realistic ... at the same time, often in order to go further , it's necessary to go on, and try the beginnings of a solution to get the ideas of the precise implications.

    6. Re:OOP == Big? (was: Perl 6 is a mistake) by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* If you have a 3D model of an environment, then an adaptative mesh conversion, and later use a physics/finite elements engine for meshes, your..... *)

      Okay, I don't do physics for a living. I do custom business applicatioins. Physical applications, such as physics, chemistry, and math may indeed fit OO better because the taxonomies that OO often depends on don't change and morph into irrelavency on the whim of bosses, customers, markets, or politicians; which is common in biz apps. God has not changed the rules of physics in my lifetime.

      (* People doing refactoring are the masters of change *)

      People doing refactoring are the *victims* of change.

      (* Data is accessed behind interface *)

      Note that I consider a relational database an *interface* and not an implementation.

      (* I don't see how you change less code in procedural code. *)

      Procedural/relational code does not make large-scale structural decisions based on the association of data and the actions on that data for the most part. In biz, the "effectors" often change. Further, actions often involve *multiple* entities. A single entity owning any one action is a silly, artificial, and unstable notion in most cases. P/r tends to manage these associations by using local boolean and relational expressions (equations), and not global physical brick-by-brick code structures. Thus, it is more virtual and abstract and relative because it depends on powerful formulas to provide the needed view instead of hand-built code structures. It is like the difference between calculus using equations versus calculus using rectangle approximations under the curve.

      (* this is not obvious when you write your own code, but definitly is when you take code from others. *)

      Not any OO code I have ever seen. About 1/4 to 1/2 of the interface is reinventing database functions (insert, delete, find, sort, etc.). That means 1/4 to 1/2 of the interface features are not going to be in a p/r equivalent because p/r has factored that into the database interfaces, instead of repeating such operations over and over and over for each and every class.

      (* Huh? Which change pattern is assumed? By grouping toghether data and code applied on it, you make least assumptions. *)

      Your fallacy is in your very sentence: the assumption that they *should* be tightly grouped together. I question that. It works okay for simple toy textbook examples, but not in the network of the real world interrelations.

  50. I'm hard pressed... by linux+slacker · · Score: 0, Troll
    to fund someone else's development of a software tool, when I have trouble funding my one necessties (food, beer etc...)

    If Larry, Dan, et al want money why not try a job? While they're at it, maybe they could peddle my resume around too.

    --
    "Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1801
    1. Re:I'm hard pressed... by fferreres · · Score: 2

      They have a job you fool. Hundred of thouthands of developers arround the globe are using their (free) product and they just need a little support to keep it great and evolving.

      If you can't find a job then don't blame others. And keep in mind these people can find another job in just milisecond.

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    2. Re:I'm hard pressed... by Elian · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Working on Perl 6, both the design and the software, is our job. That's what we do, and it's full time work plus some. It'd be great if we could work on it on the side, but that's not feasable--not for us or for almost anyone else.

      Things the size of perl, or python, or ruby, or linux, or apache, take an enourmous amount of work, and the bigger the project gets the more work it takes. The folks doing the majority of the design work are already supported to do it in some way: Matz is paid to work on Ruby, Guido's paid by Zope to work on Python, Linus and many of the Linux folks are paid to do the work they're doing by their employers, and many of the Apache developers are being paid to work on Apache. And for large projects, like perl 5, where the lead is a full volunteer, they couldn't do what they're doing without a huge contribution and sacrifice by family.

      We're trying a slightly diffrent approach, with direct grants rather than indirect ones, relying on the community to support us rather than, say, IBM or HP. And we're not asking people who can't make ends meet to donate money, but we are asking that people and companies that use perl to throw some cash into the hat.

      It's a pleasant myth that large software projects can be done for free entirely in the spare time of volunteers, but that's never been true. Either companies have paid in one form or another for the work (knowingly or unknowingly) or individuals have sacrificed a lot of their personal lives to make it happen.

  51. If only open-source projects had a business model by mpsmps · · Score: 1

    I think this shows Perl doesn't. Any commercial project with anything close to the adoption of Perl would have no trouble paying their top three guys without asking for donations. Maybe Perl operations that actually generate revenue, like ActiveState, based on their work could help.

    Needing to beg to fund these guys should cause serious introspection among open-source advocates about sustainable models for open-source development.

  52. CLiT==5u><oR5!!! ROFL!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...another glorious victory for the AC's. The very CEO of CLiT (Cock-Love is Terrific) stricken in his lair!! It's another stride on the road to victory over our fascist would-be oppressors.
    There'll be medals and shit for you, Comrade AC, when this war is over. I salute you.

  53. Don't! by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

    Give them enough funds to finish Perl6 - and they'll start Perl7.

  54. making money by h4x0r-3l337 · · Score: 1

    Whatever happened to the "make money on support" or "sell T-shirts" strategies that have been touted by the opensource community so often? How come a viable business model cannot be found to support the development of this software?

    1. Re:making money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like they've got a business model, and it sounds like it's working pretty well.

      If after the call for donations, they still don't have enough money to continue, then you can say the business model isn't viable.

    2. Re:making money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ah, so the three ways of making money with free software are:
      • sell support
      • sell t-shirts
      • beg
      nice...
  55. I would donate but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just donated all of my money to Lilo!

  56. Re:shouldn't it be called by fferreres · · Score: 2

    dot parrot (or .parrot)?

    Ok...

    --
    unfinished: (adj.)
  57. Re:shouldn't it be called by Elian · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Only over my .dead body... :)

    Besides, .NET is a proper subset of Parrot. The reverse is not true.

  58. Re:If only open-source projects had a business mod by fferreres · · Score: 2

    It's not a business, so of course they don't have a business model. They don't make it for a profit (as is getting more money after paying all salaries and expenses). They just want their salaries paid.

    Having said that, commercial (for profit) OSS projects have to find a way that involves NOT controlling the source. There are some examples, but it's easier in a non-OSS for now. But for a small company with little capital, an OSS project has the winning cards.

    OSS -> support from the consumers / users.
    CSS -> selfsupport from established player (selffunding), support from a fund or from a big company (ie: wants to buy you)

    --
    unfinished: (adj.)
  59. Re:not a troll by fferreres · · Score: 2

    It's a valid point. Perl adds an overhead which is hidden and that you come to discover when someone else has to maintain the code.

    It's real like it not not. Perl is easy/fast to write and hard/slow to maintain.

    --
    unfinished: (adj.)
  60. Help US Government! by AmericanInKiev · · Score: 2, Insightful


    All you need to fund Open Source Software is to donate it to non profit organizations - ie United Way, Federal or State Governments, or better the EFF - and get them to issue a receipt.

    In the hands of an otherwise employed programmer, tax exempt donations can be worth 75% of face value.

    Just change the GPL or (Insert favorite open source license here) to include a requirement that non-profit organizations must provide donation receipts in exchange for the use of said software.

    This in essense will cause the US government to foot the development - which is exactly waht it should do!

    AIL

  61. Re:not a troll by mattypants · · Score: 0

    It wasn't intended as a troll, I can assure you!

    I am indeed not a perl programmer, but only because I believe that code has a life beyond its original developer. I have maintained a large body (corpse?) of perl in the past. Most of it was designed and written by a very clever person who certainly knew his stuff. Now, this is definately a perl thing, because his C was perfectly readable even by our most junior coders.

    When the original developer left his job, no-one could penetrate the perl he had written. It took us weeks just to make simple changes without breaking everything. In the end, the managment decided to let us re-write it to improve long-term productivity. The end result? Even our most junior programmers could make meaningful contributions, resulting in faster development, bug fixing and ultimately satisfaction all round.

    Now I am thinking about it, in my current company we once had to throw out the perl written by a particular person - and he claimed to write elegant code, too. In all my years, I have never seen this happen to C.

    Perl gurus, don't forget that you are few and we are many. Look to the bell-curve - the owners of your output do.

  62. Hiding implementation *is* important by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Under "Re:What's left to do?"

    Why the fucken hell was this above marked as "flaimbait"!?!?!?!

    Come back here and defend yourself, coward!!!

    Hiding implementation is a common theme in software engineering (usually in OOP, but not limited to), and in practice I have outgrown hard-wired simpler structures in need of something more powerful. For example, starting out with a hash (associative array), and then needed more columns later. One could turn the value into a pointer to another array, however, we would then have to change our syntax for any references to the existing value to handle the double array. Thus, we have a "scaling cascade" WRT changes.

    Somebody needs to moderate the moderators. They are hit-and-run retards at times.