I realize there is a range of acceptable criticism within a community, and Perl has a community that is probably more inclusive than most. However, "show me the patch" is a bit of a cop out. Don't get me wrong; it is a defensable position, but a willingness dismiss everyone without a fix makes it more likely they will go elsewhere. Look at (Common) Lisp.
P.S. I love Perl and Lisp, but people tend to get defensive about sore spots. I sometimes think that it would have been easier on everyone to introduce Perl 6 as "concept car", rather than an upgrade path.
The premise of the article is also similar to the kinds of arguments people were making in the '80s about expert systems:
"We can develop inference systems for all these professions with voluminous, but highly specialized knowlege bases, and then we won't need the highly trained professionals anymore".
This also harkens to a software engineering fantasy that we can standardize and simplify hard problems.
There are many who disagree with this point of view, including Fred Brooks.
An interesting take on the failures of software is Jaron Lanier's One Half of a Manifesto.
(Actually even more enlightening is the debate that ensued around the manifesto (responses, reply).
Isn't that the point of being a monopoly. You have the choice of getting rid of whatever tech you want, and still generate revenue because people are dependent on you. I'm not specifically bashing Microsoft. Apple did something reasonably similiar with the MacOS/OSX switch.
Slashdot Mirror
I realize there is a range of acceptable criticism within a community, and Perl has a community that is probably more inclusive than most. However, "show me the patch" is a bit of a cop out. Don't get me wrong; it is a defensable position, but a willingness dismiss everyone without a fix makes it more likely they will go elsewhere. Look at (Common) Lisp.
P.S.
I love Perl and Lisp, but people tend to get defensive about sore spots. I sometimes think that it would have been easier on everyone to introduce Perl 6 as "concept car", rather than an upgrade path.
I have sympathy with this viewpoint, but committed contributers frequently get the kind of tunnel visions that make big picture criticism less likely.
The premise of the article is also similar to the kinds of arguments people were making in the '80s about expert systems:
"We can develop inference systems for all these professions with voluminous, but highly specialized knowlege bases, and then we won't need the highly trained professionals anymore".
This also harkens to a software engineering fantasy that we can standardize and simplify hard problems. There are many who disagree with this point of view, including Fred Brooks.
An interesting take on the failures of software is Jaron Lanier's One Half of a Manifesto. (Actually even more enlightening is the debate that ensued around the manifesto (responses, reply).
...then over here you got favoritism
Isn't that the point of being a monopoly. You have the choice of getting rid of whatever tech you want, and still generate revenue because people are dependent on you. I'm not specifically bashing Microsoft. Apple did something reasonably similiar with the MacOS/OSX switch.
Certainly every hacker I ever met looks like Angelina Jolie ;)
-- This never would have happened if someone in our development group hadn't been irresponsible enough to install NetBSD on that CVS machine.
Well, then it is your fault. Flaming NetBSD doesn't change the fact that someone associated with OpenBSD made an error in judgement.
N.B. I use and love OpenBSD, but I also expect people (including myself) to 'fess up to thier mistakes.