wiki
Amir E. Aharoni
There was so much talk about perl6 wiki, that i couldn't follow it anymore.
Is there a currently working wiki where actual perl6 documentation can
be read/written?
Is it http://perl.net.au/wiki/ ? It doesn't seem to be very full of info ...
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni, http://aharoni.blogspot.com/
"We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace." - Thurston Moore
______________________________________________________
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Conrad Schneiker
>
> There was so much talk about perl6 wiki, that i couldn't follow
> it anymore.
>
> Is there a currently working wiki where actual perl6 documentation can
> be read/written?
Not that I know of, at least not in the sense of being a widely-accepted and
presently-active focal point of such activity.
> Is it http://perl.net.au/wiki/ ? It doesn't seem to be very full
> of info ...
No one has come up with a better alternative, AFAIK. There seems to be
substantial reluctance to use anything that isn't Perl-based and isn't a
semi-ultimate venue.
If someone put an existing Perl-based Wiki on (say) feather (a Perl 6
development machine), that might be sufficiently widely appealing to take
off, usage-wise. Juerd has a perl6 URL that he offered for the Perl6
implementation of a Perl6 Wiki that he might be willing to make available
for such an interim Wiki.
Best regards,
Conrad Schneiker
http://perl.net.au/wiki/Perl_6_Users_FAQ (Moved from AthenaLab to Perl 6
Wiki.)
www.AthenaLab.com (Nano-electron-beam and micro-neutron-beam technology.)
Matt Todd
substantial and original, but I'm not too keen on just remaking or
porting an old solution.
M.T.
Amir E. Aharoni
Just in case i am misunderstood - i'm not talking about the platform,
i'm talking about content. If there is content, it can be later
converted to any great Perl 6 CMS - that's what we have Perl for in
the first place.
I just think that the Exegeses and the Synopses can grow much faster in a wiki,
even if the platform is not too cool initially.
(MediaWiki is good enough for me.)
I'd gladly write documentation for Perl 6, but unfortunately i don't
know it (yet) half as well as Perl 5. If there was a functioning wiki,
i'd make at least small contributions, though ....
Conrad Schneiker
>
> 2006/8/3, Matt Todd <chio...@gmail.com>:
> > I'll be honest, I was willing to put in some effort for something
> > substantial and original, but I'm not too keen on just remaking or
> > porting an old solution.
Please see my response below.
> Just in case i am misunderstood - i'm not talking about the platform,
> i'm talking about content. If there is content, it can be later
> converted to any great Perl 6 CMS - that's what we have Perl for in
> the first place.
>
> I just think that the Exegeses and the Synopses can grow much faster in a
> wiki,
> even if the platform is not too cool initially.
> (MediaWiki is good enough for me.)
>
> I'd gladly write documentation for Perl 6, but unfortunately i don't
> know it (yet) half as well as Perl 5. If there was a functioning wiki,
> i'd make at least small contributions, though ....
Exactly.
IMHO, this isn't a matter of either-or, but of concurrent development along
2 related tracks:
(1) Installing some reasonable existing Wiki on feather. It would serve the
very valuable role of accumulating Perl 6 content, and would be the primary
*interim* Perl 6 *oriented* Wiki.
(2) Developing a *new* (substantially, increasingly) Perl 6 *based* Wiki on
feather. One of the design requirements would be some mechanism for
automatically porting its initial content from the *interim* Perl 6
*oriented* Wiki.
It would be good to have (1) ASAP.
There's no reason that people who are interested in (2) have to be
interested in (1) or vice versa.
Matt Todd
> 2 related tracks:
You're right, it doesn't have to be either-or.
> [snip]
>
> It would be good to have (1) ASAP.
>
> There's no reason that people who are interested in (2) have to be
> interested in (1) or vice versa.
I agree that this makes sense, and if you did this it wouldn't be a
problem whatsoever. However, I think that, with rapid prototyping and
whatnot, we can actually get an original, minimal, working wiki, and
build from there. The database design will go together quickly, some
kind of architecture can go up quickly (scaffolding, if you will), and
then development on the most important, essential parts will come
first. Then, as the wiki is being used concurrently with the
development of it, you have a good deal of immediate feedback on
what's wrong and what needs to be changed.
But, really, that's my idea of how it should be done: I am neither the
one with the money, nor the one capable of doing it all on my own. I
just really loathe the idea of having to go from the one to the next,
when the latter will do what we need just as well with a little bit of
effort. It's important to start the project with a certain goal for
quality, but doing it rapidly.
But, as of right now, nobody's really been thinking the same (or those
that have haven't spoken up) so I can't get a community moving on it
just yet. And, personally, I've been pretty swamped with work so
learning Perl6 has been on the backburner (along with Haskell and
Scheme, unfortunately).
M.T.