Troll!!
If chromatic continues this ignorant, bias and closed minded rant/FUD. I respectfully vote chromatic as a troll.
Not listening to other people and purposely starting fights in a publicly read site. has truly shown me that chromatic has a hidden agenda.
If you have a point of view that is fine. Give your point so we can all review and ponder what you mean. But don't intentionally make people mad because they don't agree with you. THERE IS NO POINT!!!
In programing you have to give and take, along the way listen to what your user wants and this should be even more true to a core Perl developer.
There is no room in Perl for Ranting and FUD, only usable code and idea's that make our lives easier.
chromatic has a clear, persuasive way of writing. I'm increasingly awed by finding him on most every forum, pointing out factual inaccuracies in people's posts or comments. He has spent months arguing his points in eloquent posts on modernperlbooks.com.
In fact, I can't think of anyone in the Perl community who manages to keep to the facts and not mix in strawman or ad hominem arguments better than chromatic. So if he's a troll, we're all trolls.
Hidden agenda? Hogwash.
My impression is that chromatic has been quite clear and forthright with his intentions. He has looked at how the Perl 5 project has been managed, done some root cause analysis, and proposed some improvements to the process based on what his own experiences have found working well.
Nothing wrong with that. I fact, we should thank chromatic for bothering to look at something that very few open source projects consider at all.
Re:Hidden agenda? o.O
rafael on 2009-07-07T14:25:42
He provided crappy and stupid advice, and when told to shut up, politely at the time, he opened a blog to yell louder.
No thanks for being stubborn, sorry.
Re:Hidden agenda? o.O
petdance on 2009-07-07T18:32:22
No thanks for being stubborn, sorry.Why not?
What if he's right?
Re:Hidden agenda? o.O
rafael on 2009-07-07T20:23:38
Well, if he's right, then all of the people who have experience in maintaining perl 5 are wrong. Which seems very, very, unlikely, no?
Re:Hidden agenda? o.O
petdance on 2009-07-07T20:32:22
if he's right, then all of the people who have experience in maintaining perl 5 are wrong. Which seems very, very, unlikely, no?No, I don't think that logic follows whatsoever. It's entirely possible that the way that Perl 5 has been doing things for years is not as good as the way(s) that chromatic is suggesting. What's more, what I've read of chromatic's arguments make sense.
Re:Hidden agenda? o.O
elliot on 2009-07-08T01:15:56
Well, if he's right, then all of the people who have experience in maintaining perl 5 are wrong. Which seems very, very, unlikely, no?
What's with the absolutism? Cannot they both be partially right and partially wrong?
Re:Hidden agenda? o.O
cjfields on 2009-07-07T18:41:47
He provided crappy and stupid advice...
...in your opinion. The reason his arguments have gained traction is he has managed to argue his point quite successfully, and most contrary views don't beyond name-calling. In your defense you have at least offered up some reasons for your viewpoint.
... and when told to shut up, politely at the time, he opened a blog to yell louder.
No thanks for being stubborn, sorry.
Telling anyone to shut up is never polite, regardless of intent. And (as mentioned below) what if he's right?
Re:Hidden agenda? o.O
rafael on 2009-07-07T20:24:36
I replied at length and for years on P5P. He made the debate public when being tired of being told that he was wrong on a little mailing list.
Do you read P5P ?Re:Hidden agenda? o.O
petdance on 2009-07-07T20:35:13
He made the debate public when being tired of being told that he was wrong on a little mailing list.That's right, that's how change happens. To use a not-quite-accurate analogy, he saw p5p as damage and routed around it.
When you have something you want changed, and it's not getting changed, then you go find people to convert to your cause to help get more support for it, so that things can change.
You may not like what he is asking for, but there's nothing at all wrong with his tactics.
Re:Hidden agenda? o.O
link on 2009-07-08T10:42:26
That's right, that's how change happens. To use a not-quite-accurate analogy, he saw p5p as damage and routed around it.
You may not like what he is asking for, but there's nothing at all wrong with his tactics.
If you want to route around the people who maintain a piece of software why not just fork and be done with it?
Re:Hidden agenda? o.O
petdance on 2009-07-08T13:53:01
I think that if you imagine a release of a forked Perl, you'll come up with plenty of reasons why not.Re:Hidden agenda? o.O
chromatic on 2009-07-08T17:14:33
If you want to route around the people who maintain a piece of software why not just fork and be done with it?
I believe reasonable people can find better solutions to disagreements of vision and practice than fragmenting into their own bitter, smaller camps.
I'm okay with compromising, if there's a serious discussion (or if no one else believes that I'm saying anything important). I'm not okay with "Shut up, you lying, treasonous troll."
Re:Hidden agenda? o.O
cjfields on 2009-07-07T22:52:37
I replied at length and for years on P5P. He made the debate public when being tired of being told that he was wrong on a little mailing list.
I respect all the work you have done over the years on p5p, and I absolutely hate to see you resign. Hell, I agree with you on some things, but...
Do you read P5P ?
Yes I do, just not constantly. And retorts like that worry me, b/c if the prerequisite to voicing my opinion on the matter is whether or not I follow that particular heavily-trafficked mail list on a daily basis, then I guess I fail and should never attempt to discuss this nor other potential changes to p5 again.
Then again, I could blog about my thoughts...
Maybe this is a matter of interpretation, but chromatic's posts appear to me as an attempt to get his thoughts out there, and provide some constructive criticism. I haven't seen them as starting fights or intentionally trying to make anybody mad.
Let's try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and cut out the accusations of trolling and FUD. It's certainly not helping anything.
Who are you, 'pozer' (you didn't fill out your profile), and on what authority can you say that chromatic (see: http://use.perl.org/user/chromatic/, http://search.cpan.org/user/chromatic/, http://www.modernperlbooks.com/) is a "troll", "ignorant", or "closed minded". His agenda also seems to be rather un-hidden.
I'm sad that RGS doesn't want to be pumpking any longer, and I know that pumpking is a difficult task requiring intense commitment.
But, I'm also sad that new Perl users still have to be given a 20-year history lesson to understand that some extremely useful pragmas and other functionality can't be the default because some non-contributing users (who only use perl as a "bash on steroids" anyway) might have to look at code they wrote 15 years ago before upgrading their perl (even though they haven't upgraded in 5 years.) If the users who don't write new Perl code are given this much priority in the language's design, this sends a pretty clear message that Perl is not intended for writing new code.
And I still can't understand why users who don't want Perl to change are the slightest bit concerned about whether a new version changes. If you aren't ever going to upgrade, it won't affect you!
Those of us who have written Perl in the last 10 years won't have a problem with the sort of changes chromatic has been proposing -- and if we still have a mix of crufty old code in-house we know how to deal with that.
The alternative to updating old code is, of course, to rewrite everything in a different language. If Perl is not going to change, that sort of rewrite is going to keep happening and there won't be any point in shipping a new version.
Hi Pozer
I find chromatic's posts very thoughtful, and agree with much of what he says.
And you, as a nobody (with all due respect, i.e. none
Blogs are a system for delivering communication, not a system for delivering censure.
If you can't grasp the points he's making, it's time for
And as for the handle 'pozer', in classic Freudian style, you've described yourself with ghastly accuracy!
Cheers
Ron
Why not?
One person's ranting is another person's persuasive argument.
You might want to make use of a mirror.
