The development on this thing has been going on forever.
Like the C programming language or Java or C++ or Python 3000 or Ruby or PHP or....
Six really is going to be the horse developed by committee.
What does that even mean? Is Larry a committee now? (Yes, I know about @Larry. That doesn't make a meaningless cliche mean anything.)
How much of the stuff in there was cool back in '00 really matters now?
Off the top of my head, cleaner syntax, better consistency, improved FFI, more powerful grammars, multi-methods, improved OO, a better VM, true garbage collection, better speed, currying, optional type inference, hyperoperators, junctions, improved reflection, integration of regular expressions and tree transformations, role-based typing, better distribution options, JIT, true macros, and built-in set operations matter. I probably missed a few.
If you're a decent programmer and you have productive experience in a couple of languages already, it's likely you can pick up enough of a new language (especially an Algol-derivative) in a week or two and be productive. Perl and Python and Ruby and PHP aren't too different in that sense.
If you're not a programmer, it really doesn't matter how the language looks. Not only do you have to learn the purpose of the system and the design of the code already, you have to learn how to program. If your manager threw you into that point, not knowing the language is just one of many, many problems.
PPC users most likely use MacOS instead of Linux, so there's not much point in supporting that either.
If you're really not interested in actually solving a problem, just say so. It's quite another thing to claim that real problems you have no intention of fixing Aren't Really Problems because your solution doesn't work for them.
Existing packaging systems Just Work for Linux PPC. Yours doesn't. How is that possibly an improvement?
No one previously had managed to write as many scripts for Babylon 5.
No one previously had managed to write every script for a full season of any American television show. As I understand it, that's a record -- especially because he wrote the scripts for over 50 episodes in a row.
You may not care, but I think that's quite an achievement.
This proves that the author doesn't preview his articles either...
The version on my hard drive used the proper HTML tags for the headings. It also had a short reviewer biography at the end. (Of course, it did have stupid typo about which seasons JMS wrote...) Hopefully daddypants will fix the text.
We undeniably would be healthier if we polluted our environment less...
"Undeniably"? That's hardly falsifiable.
New Orleans floating away is a tangible sign that something might be different with the weather...
Would building in a marshy river delta below sea level in an area known for hurricanes and without sufficient levee support be a good idea without global warming? That's quite a hypothesis without much backing.
...what harm is being done by hyping it a little bit?
People might find the empirical method just a little confusing. That would be a shame.
Re:What was wrong with Azureus?
on
GCC 4.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
You don't need to agree to GCC's license agreement to download it or to use it.
Perhaps Lord of Light would measure up for you. It has a few similar themes, but very different characters and mechanisms (both literary and internal). I highly recommend it as Zelazny at his writing best.
I would also think that the games that are selling are the games that people (myself included) want to play.
Perhaps -- but what about the people who aren't buying games because there aren't any games that they want to play? The games that are selling aren't necessarily the best possible games.
Re:that's the amazing thing about XP
on
Microsoft Lauds Scrum
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Continuous integration is simply a way of saying continuously change the design of the architecture to meet the needs of the day.
That's pretty much exactly not continuous integration. I have my doubts about your understanding of XP.
Perl is already Tolkienized -- just look at the start of every source file!
More seriously, you can save the internal representation, but it's easy for someone skilled to turn that back in to mostly-readable source code. You don't even lose the variable names; Perl keeps them around. (For globals, you have to -- you always have to do a symbol lookup. Lexicals don't have symbolic access; the compiler turns these into indexes into pads attached to the internal representations of code objects. However, these lexical pads do keep the variable names around as they're important for error messages, among other things.)
(Guess who just wrote about lexical pads in a Perl book not more than ten minutes ago?)
That's a tough call. Episode II gets at least a point for not having an extended video game commercial in the middle (the interminable pod race), but it loses at least a point for having the worst Muppet ever to appear on screen. Even the all-digital Jar Jar was a better actor than Anakin Skywalker.
Then again, we're all lucky that Episode I's subtitle wasn't "There's always a bigger fish", just in case you didn't catch the foreshadowing a dozen other times in the movie. Let us neither speak of the subtlety of George Lucas nor the subtitle of the second movie again.
Why would the license apply to the copyright holder?
Why would a license giving people who receive the software from the copyright holder permission to distribute it enforce a particular mechanism of distribution?
How do you mean the idea that making estimates is a business decision?
If you mean that giving an estimated delivery date to the customer is a business decision, I can agree with that.
If you mean that estimating the amount of work a project will take is a business (or at least, non-technical) decision, I disagree.
If I worked on multiple projects, I would rely on my manager to schedule my time between the projects -- but I would rarely trust my manager's estimate of how much work there is in any particular project more than my own estimate. The difference seems important.
If the Perl Foundation were serious at all, they'd buy out Autrijus so he didn't have to worry about $work until next summer.
Do you know Autrijus? I do not think he would ever agree to that.
...if we don't have a beta by summer 2006, we are _dead_.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
As one of the people actually working on it, I feel confident in saying that Perl 6, Parrot, and Pugs are further along and healthier projects now than they've ever been. Maybe they're not moving as fast as the CLR or Mono or the JVM, but for the amount of funded man-months, the Perl 6 project is a tremendous bargain.
If you have ideas that would speed up the project -- and I admit a curiousity about how dropping Parrot could make it faster to achieve such goals as interoperability with Perl 5, continuations and coroutines, STM, full garbage collection, portable bytecode, JIT, efficient threads, Unicode support, and runtime grammar changes -- I'm sure any of the Perl 6 mailing lists or IRC channels would love to hear from you.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, I have working Perl 6 code.
Like the C programming language or Java or C++ or Python 3000 or Ruby or PHP or....
What does that even mean? Is Larry a committee now? (Yes, I know about @Larry. That doesn't make a meaningless cliche mean anything.)
Off the top of my head, cleaner syntax, better consistency, improved FFI, more powerful grammars, multi-methods, improved OO, a better VM, true garbage collection, better speed, currying, optional type inference, hyperoperators, junctions, improved reflection, integration of regular expressions and tree transformations, role-based typing, better distribution options, JIT, true macros, and built-in set operations matter. I probably missed a few.
If you're a decent programmer and you have productive experience in a couple of languages already, it's likely you can pick up enough of a new language (especially an Algol-derivative) in a week or two and be productive. Perl and Python and Ruby and PHP aren't too different in that sense.
If you're not a programmer, it really doesn't matter how the language looks. Not only do you have to learn the purpose of the system and the design of the code already, you have to learn how to program. If your manager threw you into that point, not knowing the language is just one of many, many problems.
What good is that? The only possible reason I could see is that if you're trying to learn the language.
Certainly someone who doesn't know the language has no business maintaining the code.
More projects should be so lucky. MySQL has had a huge automated test suite for years.
I hope you're being ironic.
If you're really not interested in actually solving a problem, just say so. It's quite another thing to claim that real problems you have no intention of fixing Aren't Really Problems because your solution doesn't work for them.
Existing packaging systems Just Work for Linux PPC. Yours doesn't. How is that possibly an improvement?
No one previously had managed to write every script for a full season of any American television show. As I understand it, that's a record -- especially because he wrote the scripts for over 50 episodes in a row.
You may not care, but I think that's quite an achievement.
The version on my hard drive used the proper HTML tags for the headings. It also had a short reviewer biography at the end. (Of course, it did have stupid typo about which seasons JMS wrote...) Hopefully daddypants will fix the text.
He wrote every episode of season 3. He wrote every episode of season 4. He wrote all but one episode of season 5.
Good point. Replace "including all of" with "including every episode of".
Forbid the idea that anyone should take pride in his work and want to share it with other people!
"Undeniably"? That's hardly falsifiable.
Would building in a marshy river delta below sea level in an area known for hurricanes and without sufficient levee support be a good idea without global warming? That's quite a hypothesis without much backing.
People might find the empirical method just a little confusing. That would be a shame.
You don't need to agree to GCC's license agreement to download it or to use it.
Perhaps Lord of Light would measure up for you. It has a few similar themes, but very different characters and mechanisms (both literary and internal). I highly recommend it as Zelazny at his writing best.
Perhaps someone broke in and fixed the code.
Perhaps -- but what about the people who aren't buying games because there aren't any games that they want to play? The games that are selling aren't necessarily the best possible games.
That's pretty much exactly not continuous integration. I have my doubts about your understanding of XP.
Perl is already Tolkienized -- just look at the start of every source file!
More seriously, you can save the internal representation, but it's easy for someone skilled to turn that back in to mostly-readable source code. You don't even lose the variable names; Perl keeps them around. (For globals, you have to -- you always have to do a symbol lookup. Lexicals don't have symbolic access; the compiler turns these into indexes into pads attached to the internal representations of code objects. However, these lexical pads do keep the variable names around as they're important for error messages, among other things.)
(Guess who just wrote about lexical pads in a Perl book not more than ten minutes ago?)
That's a tough call. Episode II gets at least a point for not having an extended video game commercial in the middle (the interminable pod race), but it loses at least a point for having the worst Muppet ever to appear on screen. Even the all-digital Jar Jar was a better actor than Anakin Skywalker.
Then again, we're all lucky that Episode I's subtitle wasn't "There's always a bigger fish", just in case you didn't catch the foreshadowing a dozen other times in the movie. Let us neither speak of the subtlety of George Lucas nor the subtitle of the second movie again.
I don't run x86 Linux; I'd just like drivers, period.
The chance of having working drivers increases immensely with source code.
Why would the license apply to the copyright holder?
Why would a license giving people who receive the software from the copyright holder permission to distribute it enforce a particular mechanism of distribution?
"Distribute", not "use". This may not be an issue in personal or business internal development.
How do you mean the idea that making estimates is a business decision?
If you mean that giving an estimated delivery date to the customer is a business decision, I can agree with that.
If you mean that estimating the amount of work a project will take is a business (or at least, non-technical) decision, I disagree.
If I worked on multiple projects, I would rely on my manager to schedule my time between the projects -- but I would rarely trust my manager's estimate of how much work there is in any particular project more than my own estimate. The difference seems important.
Do you know Autrijus? I do not think he would ever agree to that.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
As one of the people actually working on it, I feel confident in saying that Perl 6, Parrot, and Pugs are further along and healthier projects now than they've ever been. Maybe they're not moving as fast as the CLR or Mono or the JVM, but for the amount of funded man-months, the Perl 6 project is a tremendous bargain.
If you have ideas that would speed up the project -- and I admit a curiousity about how dropping Parrot could make it faster to achieve such goals as interoperability with Perl 5, continuations and coroutines, STM, full garbage collection, portable bytecode, JIT, efficient threads, Unicode support, and runtime grammar changes -- I'm sure any of the Perl 6 mailing lists or IRC channels would love to hear from you.
The parentheses put the right-hand side of the expression in list context.