I'd take your argument at all seriously if it were more honest, say either "I don't believe any implementation of Perl 6 will ever meet the 6.0.0 spec" or "It shouldn't have taken ten years to release Rakudo Star." Those are debatable positions.
Actually, I clarified what I meant in a previous post, when I characterized Perl 6 implementations as "incomplete implementation[s] of a draft specification". I didn't say it didn't exist, just that it exists in a non-final, pre-released state. Some people call them betas, some people call them release candidates, some people call them pre-release, and you try to cleverly evade the fact that every Perl 6 implementation is an incomplete implementation of a draft spec, but a rose by any other name and so forth.
I actually expect that some Perl 6 implementation will meet a finished 6.0.0 spec within the next 5 years. But none does currently. Which is a roundabout way of saying "it's not done yet", which is apparently doubleplusungood to state so directly.
I got into this trying to say good things about Perl. I guess you've shown me the error of my ways. If I'm going to have everything I say about Perl on Hacker News trolled by defensive Perl fanbois, I might as well trot out the old "explosion in an ASCII factory" joke again.
Edit: The problem is, you're seeing criticism where there was really none there. All I made was a statement of fact--Perl 6 isn't done yet. I've even clarified what I meant by "not done yet"--the spec is draft and the implementations are incomplete even against that spec. I think that's a reasonable definition of "not done yet", don't you? I never said anything about how long it's taking or whether implementation and spec will ever meet, you just projected those criticisms onto me because you're defensive about the issue. That's bad faith. Fuck, man, I even said Perl 6 would be done in the near future! How the hell do you get from that to projecting "I don't believe any implementation of Perl 6 will ever meet the 6.0.0 spec" onto me? Are you even reading my comments or am I talking to myself here?
Hi Phil, don't feel bad, amigo. The problem is that the good Perl 6 people are putting in long hours making something really awesome, and they are doing it only for fun, the challenge, the love of programming, and because it's great to build something beautiful and useful for oneself, and for the world.
Meanwhile, over in non-Perl-world, other people are (sometimes innocently, sometimes idly, sometimes maliciously) perpetuating these idiotic toxic "perl is X" memes which just poison the ecosystem for rational argument (in my opinion).
So you stepped into a minefield with good intentions, my thoughtful friend. But if I were on the Perl 6 team, I would be so frustrated by others out there who have this perverse obsession with what other people are doing, what other people are using, what other people are building.
It's not healthy, but regretably, it's also often very mean-spirited and has all the social utility of gambling on a cock fight.
I love what Perl has become, what the Perl community is, what the Perl 6 people are building, the UNIX-y culture, the spirit of adventure. It's really cool, and for those who don't get it, and don't want to, just move on (not you Phil).
... you try to cleverly evade the fact that every Perl 6 implementation is an incomplete implementation of a draft spec.
Nonsense; even the release announcements say that directly.
All I made was a statement of fact--Perl 6 isn't done yet.
I wouldn't have objected if you'd written that. Characterizing software we've released on schedule for almost three years running as something thrown out in the world incomplete, ahead of an "official" release (whatever "official" means) is, I believe, incorrect and unhelpful.
Actually, I clarified what I meant in a previous post, when I characterized Perl 6 implementations as "incomplete implementation[s] of a draft specification". I didn't say it didn't exist, just that it exists in a non-final, pre-released state. Some people call them betas, some people call them release candidates, some people call them pre-release, and you try to cleverly evade the fact that every Perl 6 implementation is an incomplete implementation of a draft spec, but a rose by any other name and so forth.
I actually expect that some Perl 6 implementation will meet a finished 6.0.0 spec within the next 5 years. But none does currently. Which is a roundabout way of saying "it's not done yet", which is apparently doubleplusungood to state so directly.
I got into this trying to say good things about Perl. I guess you've shown me the error of my ways. If I'm going to have everything I say about Perl on Hacker News trolled by defensive Perl fanbois, I might as well trot out the old "explosion in an ASCII factory" joke again.
Edit: The problem is, you're seeing criticism where there was really none there. All I made was a statement of fact--Perl 6 isn't done yet. I've even clarified what I meant by "not done yet"--the spec is draft and the implementations are incomplete even against that spec. I think that's a reasonable definition of "not done yet", don't you? I never said anything about how long it's taking or whether implementation and spec will ever meet, you just projected those criticisms onto me because you're defensive about the issue. That's bad faith. Fuck, man, I even said Perl 6 would be done in the near future! How the hell do you get from that to projecting "I don't believe any implementation of Perl 6 will ever meet the 6.0.0 spec" onto me? Are you even reading my comments or am I talking to myself here?