2 ms·
A more valid criticism of the perl 6 development model is that it's a big-bang approach. They have sunk enormous resources into the components of this system w
by Estragon 17y ago
A more valid criticism of the perl 6 development model is that it's a big-bang approach. They have sunk enormous resources into the components of this system with limited capacity to test either the compatibility of the components they're generating or the utility of the features they're implementing. Sounds like a recipe for disappointment.
- whiskeyjack 17y agoI'll start this with "I'm a Perl programmer" but I'm not looking for a flame war. I am interested in hearing an expansion of your statements. I am going to admit I don't understand this one. What do you mean by "Big Bang"? That Perl 6 is being developed on top of Parrot? That Perl 6 is a reinvention instead of re-iteration? What "enormous resources" are you referring to? The Perl 6 team isn't huge and it's all volunteer with very little financial backing (only some relatively small grants from the Perl Foundation). Which components are you referring to? Where are the "limited ability to test the compatibility of the components"? Which components? There are a lot of tests though... a truly massive test set. I'm assuming you're not referring to these. From my understanding the "utility" is a pretty big part of what they're testing. There are folk writing Perl 6 (November wiki http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6/index.cgi?november http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6/index.cgi?november). The implementors are going back and forth with Larry about things. A lot of the ideas aren't new, just new in Perl. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. :)