Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

L2R/R2L syntax [x-adr][x-bayes]

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Garrett Goebel

unread,
Jan 17, 2003, 5:44:58 PM1/17/03
to Damian Conway, perl6-l...@perl.org
From: Damian Conway [mailto:dam...@conway.org]
>
> We should bear in mind that Larry has had some health issues.
> And that he's currently unemployed with four children to support.
> Other matters are taking precedence at the moment.

Hmm... If the Larry and the Perl Foundation would be agreeable. I'd just as
soon see a grant set up for Larry again this year. And if so, I'd like to
see the Perl Foundation grant(s) publicized before tax-deductable donations
to non-profit organizations can no longer be applied to 2002.

If so, I'm pretty sure I'll be able to match last years' contribution.

--
Garrett Goebel
IS Development Specialist

ScriptPro Direct: 913.403.5261
5828 Reeds Road Main: 913.384.1008
Mission, KS 66202 Fax: 913.384.2180
www.scriptpro.com gar...@scriptpro.com

Damian Conway

unread,
Jan 17, 2003, 6:10:48 PM1/17/03
to perl6-l...@perl.org
>>We should bear in mind that Larry has had some health issues.
>>And that he's currently unemployed with four children to support.
>>Other matters are taking precedence at the moment.
>
> Hmm... If the Larry and the Perl Foundation would be agreeable. I'd just as
> soon see a grant set up for Larry again this year. And if so, I'd like to
> see the Perl Foundation grant(s) publicized before tax-deductable donations
> to non-profit organizations can no longer be applied to 2002.

It's my understanding that TPF is not intending to offer Larry (or Dan)
another grant for 2003. They feel that too many people have come to see
TPF's role and contribution to have been limited to Perl 6 (though
funding Dan was in fact supporting the much broader benefits of Parrot
development and funding me probably benefitted Perl 5 even more than Perl 6).

However, I am sure they would welcome feedback on what the community would
actually like to donate towards:

http://www.perlfoundation.org/index.cgi?page=contacts


> If so, I'm pretty sure I'll be able to match last years' contribution.

[People may not realize what a very generous offer that is. Garrett has
been a *major* contributer in the past. And, unless he's living in a
parallel economic dimension, funds must be tighter this year.]


Damian

Paul Johnson

unread,
Jan 17, 2003, 6:49:23 PM1/17/03
to Damian Conway, perl6-l...@perl.org
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 03:10:48PM -0800, Damian Conway wrote:

> It's my understanding that TPF is not intending to offer Larry (or Dan)
> another grant for 2003. They feel that too many people have come to see
> TPF's role and contribution to have been limited to Perl 6 (though
> funding Dan was in fact supporting the much broader benefits of Parrot
> development and funding me probably benefitted Perl 5 even more than Perl
> 6).

Well, I'll be pretty interested to discover what cause is deemed more
deserving than Larry, Perl 6 or Parrot. The P still stands for Perl,
right?

--
Paul Johnson - pa...@pjcj.net
http://www.pjcj.net

Damian Conway

unread,
Jan 17, 2003, 7:21:08 PM1/17/03
to Paul Johnson, perl6-l...@perl.org
Paul Johnson wrote:

> Well, I'll be pretty interested to discover what cause is deemed more
> deserving than Larry, Perl 6 or Parrot. The P still stands for Perl,
> right?

True. But I suspect that TPF's position is that, to many people, Perl 6 is
far less important than mod_Perl, or DBI, or HTML::Mason, or POE, or PDL, or
Inline, or SpamAssassin, or XML::Parser, or YAML, or the Slashcode, or any of
a hundred other projects on which their job depends on a daily basis.

Supporting those efforts is important too, and TPF has only limited resources.

Of course, it's my belief that supporting Larry (and Dan) to create Perl 6
is the single most important thing that TPF could do. Because, ultimately, it
will benefit all those other projects enormously too.

But I'm clearly biased. :-)

Damian

Paul Johnson

unread,
Jan 17, 2003, 7:58:21 PM1/17/03
to Damian Conway, perl6-l...@perl.org
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 04:21:08PM -0800, Damian Conway wrote:

> True. But I suspect that TPF's position is that, to many people, Perl 6 is
> far less important than mod_Perl, or DBI, or HTML::Mason, or POE, or PDL,
> or Inline, or SpamAssassin, or XML::Parser, or YAML, or the Slashcode, or
> any of a hundred other projects on which their job depends on a daily basis.

That may well be true, but it seems to me that if people's jobs depend
on those projects then there is (or could be or should be) a source of
funding available, should such be required, namely the companies who are
(hopefully) making a profit on the backs of those projects. Yes, I know
it's not that easy.

No one's job depends on Perl 6 or Parrot (yet). Well, hardly anyone's :)

Still, I suppose I am preaching to the choir in the wrong chapel.

Simon Cozens

unread,
Jan 17, 2003, 9:10:59 PM1/17/03
to perl6-l...@perl.org
dam...@conway.org (Damian Conway) writes:
> True. But I suspect that TPF's position is that, to many people, Perl 6 is
> far less important than mod_Perl, or DBI, or HTML::Mason, or POE, or
> PDL, or Inline, or SpamAssassin, or XML::Parser, or YAML, or the
> Slashcode, or any of a hundred other projects on which their job
> depends on a daily basis.

Amen to that.

--
DISCLAIMER:
Use of this advanced computing technology does not imply an endorsement
of Western industrial civilization.

Simon Cozens

unread,
Jan 17, 2003, 9:11:37 PM1/17/03
to perl6-l...@perl.org
pa...@pjcj.net (Paul Johnson) writes:
> That may well be true, but it seems to me that if people's jobs depend
> on those projects then there is (or could be or should be) a source of
> funding available, should such be required, namely the companies who are
> (hopefully) making a profit on the backs of those projects.

And to what organisation do you suggest such companies make a donation in
order to make best use of that funding?

--
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good,
you'll have to ram them down people's throats."
-- Howard Aiken

Paul Johnson

unread,
Jan 17, 2003, 9:03:59 PM1/17/03
to Simon Cozens, perl6-l...@perl.org
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 02:11:37AM +0000, Simon Cozens wrote:

> pa...@pjcj.net (Paul Johnson) writes:
> > That may well be true, but it seems to me that if people's jobs depend
> > on those projects then there is (or could be or should be) a source of
> > funding available, should such be required, namely the companies who are
> > (hopefully) making a profit on the backs of those projects.

Hey! You carefully elided my disclaimer.

> And to what organisation do you suggest such companies make a donation in
> order to make best use of that funding?

It seems to me that TPC would be the perfect vehicle for any company
wishing to fund a specific Perl project. Previous disclaimer still
applies.

But now we are off topic.

David Storrs

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 2:46:20 PM1/21/03
to perl6-l...@perl.org
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 04:21:08PM -0800, Damian Conway wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> > Well, I'll be pretty interested to discover what cause is deemed more
> > deserving than Larry, Perl 6 or Parrot. The P still stands for Perl,
> > right?
>
> True. But I suspect that TPF's position is that, to many people, Perl 6 is
> far less important than mod_Perl, or DBI, or HTML::Mason, or POE, or PDL, or
> Inline, or SpamAssassin, or XML::Parser, or YAML, or the Slashcode, or any of
> a hundred other projects on which their job depends on a daily basis.
>
> Supporting those efforts is important too, and TPF has only limited resources.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the one thing that all those
projects have in common...well...Perl? And isn't Larry the guy to
whom we owe the existence of Perl? I'm not fortunate enough to be
using Perl in my job, but I'm still more than happy to pony up for a
donation, purely from gratitude.

This is something along the lines of the applied research vs basic
research question. What Larry is doing pretty much amounts to basic
research that will help all of these other projects in the long run.


--Dks

Piers Cawley

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 3:32:18 PM1/21/03
to perl6-l...@perl.org
David Storrs <dst...@dstorrs.com> writes:

I shall certainly be thinking long and hard about passing the perl.com
payments to TPF if Larry's not being funded this year (if I should
become a member of the copious free time club there'll be no thought
necessary I'm afraid, income is income). Which reminds me, I need to
check (as I have naively assumed) that the money is automagically
being paid to TPF without my having to muck about with invoices and
the like. Hmm...

Seriously, I think that not putting some funding Larry's way is a big
mistake. I'm not saying he should be the only recipient of funds, but
he *is* a special case.

John Adams

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 5:00:07 PM1/21/03
to Piers Cawley, perl6-l...@perl.org
This is a valuable discussion, and I hope people will take this up on advo...@perl.org as well.

Thanks,

John A
see me fulminate at http://www.jzip.org/

Austin Hastings

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 5:21:58 PM1/21/03
to David Storrs, perl6-l...@perl.org

Sure. But managing the funding budget isn't a business, where basic
research will enable more income. It's the allocation of scarce
resources. And from that viewpoint, Larry and P6 is an iceberg, just
cruising along hoping to gash a massive hole in the support/maintenance
schedule, because once P6 rolls all the other stuff has to be sorted,
ported, and supported.

If I was in charge of the TPF funding budget, I'd be yearning to pick
up the phone whenever I saw an episode of "The Sopranos"(*)...


=Austin

Nicholas Clark

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 6:21:29 PM1/21/03
to Austin Hastings, David Storrs, perl6-l...@perl.org
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 02:21:58PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> --- David Storrs <dst...@dstorrs.com> wrote:

> > This is something along the lines of the applied research vs basic
> > research question. What Larry is doing pretty much amounts to basic
> > research that will help all of these other projects in the long run.
>
> Sure. But managing the funding budget isn't a business, where basic
> research will enable more income. It's the allocation of scarce

I'm not convinced that that is correct. Basic research may enable more
income. If it works. But at least 90% of basic research won't. Hence you
have to do a lot of it, but the odd time you get it right, it can be very
lucrative

> resources. And from that viewpoint, Larry and P6 is an iceberg, just
> cruising along hoping to gash a massive hole in the support/maintenance
> schedule, because once P6 rolls all the other stuff has to be sorted,
> ported, and supported.

I'm not quite following you - this looks like an argument against P6, because
its appearance will create a lot more work?

> If I was in charge of the TPF funding budget, I'd be yearning to pick
> up the phone whenever I saw an episode of "The Sopranos"(*)...

And this I don't follow at all, having never seen The Sopranos. So I'm
probably completely failing to address the points you are making


The problem I see with not funding Larry, is that if as a consequence
Larry has to get a job that prevents him from working on Perl 6, Perl 6
won't happen until he retires. Anyone can implement Perl 6 (although I
reckon we'd have a setback of many months on parrot if Dan stopped and
left, and more if other people dropped out as a result. But it can be
picked up by anyone capable). Not just anyone can design Perl 6.

The obvious counter argument is that if Perl 6 stops, Perl 5 as is won't go
away; Perl 5 is what we have; Perl 5 is what we are using, and Perl 5 is
good enough. However eventually everyone volunteering to work on it will
drift away. At which point it is stagnant, and no bugs get fixed. For some
reason, Perl 6 actually brought a lot of new blood and new momentum to Perl
5. I suspect Perl 5.8 would not have happened, or at least not have happened
yet, had Perl 6 not been around. Perl 6 may seem crazy, far fetched and long
term. Yet it is bringing morale to Perl 5, suggesting that Perl does have a
future, and that maybe Perl 5 is worth working on. If Perl 5 doesn't feel
worth working on, then most will go away. I've been involved in development
communities before where the future has been pulled out from under our feet.
The community dissipates - there is more fun to be had elsewhere.

You may think that volunteers on Perl 5 are not important. You may not be
using Perl 5.8, and you may see no need to. Ever.

But if you're using 5.004, 5.005_03 or 5.6.1, and you have hit a bug in it,
how are you going to get it fixed? Currently bugs discovered in 5.8 are
actively being fixed (or at least ought to be - nag p5p if they aren't).
But a release of 5.6.2 looks unlikely, and 5.005_04 equally improbable.
How would you feel if there was never going to be a 5.8.1 either?
Would it affect your technology choice? Would it affect your
clients'/employers'?

Hence I would argue that if Perl 6 halts, Perl 5 stops looking credible
long term. Which I don't want to happen.

Currently this argument is shaky, because to an external observer, Larry
with funding unable to produce apocolypses due to other reasons is
indistinguishable from Larry unable to produce apocolypses due to lack of
funding. Except that there is visibly less money for anything else worthy.

Nicholas Clark

Stanley Hopcroft

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 1:43:17 AM1/24/03
to
gar...@scriptpro.com (Garrett Goebel) wrote in message news:<71BEC0D4E1DED3118F7A009027B12028034C8B79@EXCH_MISSION>...

> From: Damian Conway [mailto:dam...@conway.org]
> >
> > We should bear in mind that Larry has had some health issues.
> > And that he's currently unemployed with four children to support.
> > Other matters are taking precedence at the moment.
>

I have no great interest in TPF or Perl6 but a _great_ deal of
interest in
Mr Walls health and wlefare - indivisible from that of his family.

He is the person I see, sorry folks, as being largely responsible for
giving far more than he gained, in the conception of Perl\d+, not to
mention a new niche in literature with 'Progamming Perl 1st edition'.

Please let me know where I can send some sort of practical
appreciation and affirmation of his role in a great work.

Damian Conway

unread,
Jan 25, 2003, 8:20:27 PM1/25/03
to perl6-l...@perl.org
David Storrs wrote:

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the one thing that all those
> projects have in common...well...Perl? And isn't Larry the guy to
> whom we owe the existence of Perl? I'm not fortunate enough to be
> using Perl in my job, but I'm still more than happy to pony up for a
> donation, purely from gratitude.
>
> This is something along the lines of the applied research vs basic
> research question. What Larry is doing pretty much amounts to basic
> research that will help all of these other projects in the long run.

This is my view as well, but I can understand that it may not be everyone's
(including the TPF's).

At the moment, TPF is preparing to set up an on-line questionnaire to
get feedback from the community on what it's priorities should be.

Then we will all have our chance to have our say.

Damian


0 new messages