Talk:Perl 6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Computing | |||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 |
This is not a forum for general discussion of Perl 6. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to post your thoughts at the Reference desk, the Village pump, or the Help desk. |
 |
Perl 6 was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: September 22, 2006 |
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Perl 6 links
Hi. I maintain Perl 6 and Parrot links. Is it usefull for exernal links? --mj41 21:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Probably not, but if you get that added to dmoz, then adding a link to dmoz here would be acceptable. Please see WP:NOT for further information. -Harmil 13:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT doesn't apply to adding a single link. Furthermore, there are links to criticism in that list of links that should be used in this article. Again I should emphasize that their correctness is irrelevant as per NPOV policy. -71.166.153.191 06:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Personal comments
I just noticed the good article initiative. The article doesn't make clear the original scope of dissatisfaction with Perl 5 that justified, what, a seven-years-and-counting revision cycle. Nor is it clear reading the synopsis of language changes which of these changes were considered vital to the goals of the project, nor which of these changes most impacted the length of the project. Did the original warts run so deep it has taken seven years to remove them? The one point where that struck me as having potentially consumed a large quantity of intellectual work was the further generalization of regular expressions to regexes. Surely it wouldn't have taken seven years to accomplish sigil invariance. Perhaps the closures were also difficult, or just the interaction of so many changes. Nor does the article address the issue about why all these ambitious changes have been pursued ensemble, without a formal halfway-there release, which many projects of this scope would attempt to achieve. I'm just saying that the nature of the ambition behind the project doesn't come across in a way you can take home after reading it. It's a bit like explaining in an article about the space program that the life support and navigation systems, etc. were all challenging to achieve, without making it clear how much that was complicated by the payload restriction dictated by the Saturn V launch vehicle. In other respects, I felt this article reads quite well. MaxEnt 03:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Try Constraints and Software Development ( chromatic, oreillynet.com blog, 16.8.2007) and others from Perl 6 and Parrot links. --mj41 20:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Considered vaporware" citation
Someone tagged the sentence "Perl 6 has been under development for over seven years, prompting some commentators to suggest that Perl 6 may be vaporware" with {{who}} despite the fact that googling [perl-6 vaporware] reveals thousands of hits on all sorts of different online venues. Obviously a lot of people do consider Perl 6 vaporware. But how does one turn that into a citation by Wikipedia? Is there even any need to provide citation for things that can be verified by anyone with half their wits in 5 seconds?
—Aristotle (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- That search contains references to Wikipedia and all its mirrors. A search that excludes Wikipedia and its mirrors results in only 51 hits, not thousands. Also, please don't toss around phrases like "can be verified by anyone with half their wits", especially given that your analysis hasn't been sufficiently rigorous. Mindmatrix 16:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Interestingly, conducting the same search a few moments later yields 1230 hits (many duplicates of only a few articles, or links to those articles). My point is still valid though - most searches should be conducted to exclude Wikipedia to find relevant external resources. Mindmatrix 16:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Conceded, but still, that’s merely an exact search for the keywords “Perl 6” and “vaporware”. It does not include the many other ways to express the exact same sentiment without using that word. F.ex., one of Guido’s maxims for the Python3000 effort was “Not Perl 6”, by which he meant “keep a tight grip on scope to avoid an explosion in time-till-completion.” That’s just one example of the ways in which people say “it’s taking forever and might never even finish”, AKA vaporware. Chromatic alone has probably written some two dozen substantial rants about people griping that Perl 6 isn’t done yet. There is no doubt that this sentiment is widely shared, even if it’s not something for which you can point to one easy single citation. If anyone has suggestions about how to deal with that
{{who}}sensibly (which might mean simply deleting it), I’m all ears.
—Aristotle (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Conceded, but still, that’s merely an exact search for the keywords “Perl 6” and “vaporware”. It does not include the many other ways to express the exact same sentiment without using that word. F.ex., one of Guido’s maxims for the Python3000 effort was “Not Perl 6”, by which he meant “keep a tight grip on scope to avoid an explosion in time-till-completion.” That’s just one example of the ways in which people say “it’s taking forever and might never even finish”, AKA vaporware. Chromatic alone has probably written some two dozen substantial rants about people griping that Perl 6 isn’t done yet. There is no doubt that this sentiment is widely shared, even if it’s not something for which you can point to one easy single citation. If anyone has suggestions about how to deal with that
-
-
-
-
- Probably the best way would be pick two or three representative citations and use those. —Cryptic 21:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Py3k
It seems unfair to the merged Py3k article that this article is allowed to be seperate from the main Perl article. I do not know the guidelines, but this discrepancy became apparent to me as the casual reader. Sorry, should I raise old issues here. --129.241.135.159 (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Python 3k is a cleanup revision similar to say Perl 5.5 -> 5.8 in its scope (at most) while Perl 6 is an entirely different language from Perl 5, it's not appropriate to merge the articles. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Programming-republic-of-perl.png
The image Image:Programming-republic-of-perl.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
-
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ruby influence
``Roles in Perl 6 take on the function of interfaces in Java, mixins in Ruby, and traits[18] in the Smalltalk variant Squeak.
Just put it back in both articles (ruby and this). ktnxbye!
- Why - that statement is not supported by a citation (one is provided for the influence from Traits, but none for Ruby mixins (or Java interfaces). Without a proper citation, this portion of the text will be removed too. (By the way, because two things are comparable does not imply that one influenced the development of the other. It is clear from Apocalypse 12 by Larry Wall that Traits was the influence for Roles.) Mindmatrix 14:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
-
- I doubt it can be very controversial that roles «take on the function of» mixins – though if it is, I'm reasonably sure a reference can be found for it :) – but to call roles an example of Ruby «influence» on Perl 6, is taking it way too far, for the reasons you give. As for other Ruby influences, Perl is not terribly worried about where it fits on the Rubyometer. Ruby will need to worry about where it fits on the Perlometer. But perhaps Wikipedia also needs to worry? :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Whitespace
A major idea in Perl 6 is the significance of whitespace. This really should be covered here. I don't have time to write a fresh section right now, so I'll note it here. Długosz (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Camelia?
There's no citation that the queen bee logo... Is that even real? leaflord (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Camelia is real. (Though I thought she was a buttefly, not a queen bee. Anyway.) I'm pretty sure I first saw it on the perl6-language mailing list. Hang on ... — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- This message sums up most of what I rememeber. «Camelia, the Perl 6 bug» appears on http://www.perl6-projects.org/. Nothing immediately says "official" (and certainly not "final"), but hey, this is Larry's work ... it's probably as good as we're going to get. :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Oh, and most seem to think "butterfly". Including Larry.
