3 ms·
The domain outspeaking.com is owned by chromatic's company. Afaict chromatic was the first to promote the article with a tweet shortly after it was published a
by raiph 12y ago
The domain outspeaking.com is owned by chromatic's company.
Afaict chromatic was the first to promote the article with a tweet shortly after it was published and shortly before it appeared here on HN and reddit.
When someone noted this connection on reddit and said they thought chromatic wrote it his response was "I'm not the only person with access to the server. Anonymous wrote that article."
http://www.reddit.com/r/perl/comments/27o6h5/why_perl_didnt_win/ci32gof http://www.reddit.com/r/perl/comments/27o6h5/why_perl_didnt_...
Even if it's not chromatic (I think it is), is it not obvious that the OP article is designed to garner inbound links/views (and sell books) rather than provide a balanced picture? Consider the juxtaposition of the deceitful title and well written content. Do you see what the author did there?
- kbenson 12y agoMy understanding is that chromatic is not the only person at that company that knows Perl, not that has had experience with Perl 6 and/or Parrot. I think it's appropriate to judge the article on it's merits and how well it covers the issue, not the specific views of people that may be associated with it. Truth be told, I was thinking while reading it that it sounded quite a bit like chromatic but with tones down criticism, and said as much to a friend I fowarded it to. I wrote this "Sounds a lot like chromatic when he was disillusioned, but not yet bitter. Which is to say harsh, but definitely constructive." That it's from the company he's involved in doesn't surprise me. If he wrote it and wants to keep it as aonymous, I think that's perfectly acceptable. If someone else there wrote it, that wouldn't surprise me either; I doubt all of his thoughts and opinions happen in a vacuum.