a remark about 'stability'

Discussion in 'Perl Misc' started by Rainer Weikusat, May 26, 2013.

  1. ,----
    | I suspect that the CPAN-hostile environment which still promotes
    | CGI.pm as the state of the art in Perl overlaps strongly with the
    | older-is-better-stability-over-all enterprise Linux distribution
    | group, of which Red Hat for example won't provide Perl 5.20 for
    | several years,
    `----

    I also suspect that the fraction of people who have existing code they
    don't want to see broken because of 'political attempts' to promote
    this or that not-yet-abandoned wepp fremmwuerg strongly overlaps with
    the fraction of people who have existing code they ....

    But you, dear modernists, can do better than outlined above: Just
    break more stuff which always used to work more rapidly and you might
    manage to make Perl 5 go the way of Perl6^Wthe dodo: Nobody uses it
    because it isn't fit for use anymore. Imagine that you can probably
    get 'RedHat' to never ship Perl 5.20 and onwards at all because
    none of their customers wants it.
    Rainer Weikusat, May 26, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rainer Weikusat <> writes:
    > ,----
    > | I suspect that the CPAN-hostile environment which still promotes
    > | CGI.pm as the state of the art in Perl overlaps strongly with the
    > | older-is-better-stability-over-all enterprise Linux distribution
    > | group, of which Red Hat for example won't provide Perl 5.20 for
    > | several years,
    > `----
    >
    > I also suspect that the fraction of people who have existing code they
    > don't want to see broken because of 'political attempts' to promote
    > this or that not-yet-abandoned wepp fremmwuerg strongly overlaps with
    > the fraction of people who have existing code they ....


    To supplant this with some 'real-world data': Among the things I need
    to deal with at the moment are two packages making up a 'system
    management GUI' I'm supposed to maintain and extend in order to
    provide a more complete set of features. These consist of 7,404 lines
    of code based on CGI.pm (5,553 Perl, 1,043 sh, 808 C) and even if I
    would agree with 'strange' opinion statements a la 'in order to use
    the CGI protocol, you have to know the CGI protocol' (Really? Who da
    thunk ...), considering what amounts to 18 lines of Apache
    configuration 'hard to deploy' (Someone confusing his ignorance with
    'objective technical difficulties' OR someone hoping to confuse
    ignorant others?) or assuming that "it hasn't changed much since 1998"
    would constitute a quality judgement (the stove I'm using today also
    "hasn't changed much" compared to stoves I used to use ten years ago
    -- clearly, the fact that it works instead of being 'under
    construction' is abhorrent), there would be no way in heaven or hell
    to convince my boss that rewriting these seven-and-a-half thousand
    lines of code in a currently more fashionable way in order for them to
    become more ... fashionable would be a sensible way to use company
    work time.
    Rainer Weikusat, May 26, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ben Morrow <> writes:
    > Quoth Rainer Weikusat <>:
    >> ,----
    >> | I suspect that the CPAN-hostile environment which still promotes
    >> | CGI.pm as the state of the art in Perl overlaps strongly with the
    >> | older-is-better-stability-over-all enterprise Linux distribution
    >> | group, of which Red Hat for example won't provide Perl 5.20 for
    >> | several years,
    >> `----
    >>
    >> I also suspect that the fraction of people who have existing code they
    >> don't want to see broken because of 'political attempts' to promote
    >> this or that not-yet-abandoned wepp fremmwuerg strongly overlaps with
    >> the fraction of people who have existing code they ....

    >
    > Oh, do shut up. Nobody cares about your paranoid ranting.


    That's exactly the kind of 'intelligent discussion' of possibly
    far-reaching core perl API changes which has happened in this
    particular area so far: I hate it. Whoever disagrees with me doesn't
    count. Ergo: It is, for all practical purposes, unused, and can be
    removed.

    RedHat won't provide 'Perl 5.20' for several years because they have
    existing customers who use the current code and don't fancy 'a la mode
    redevelopments' of software they've presumably been using for years.
    Changing working code because tools go in and out of fashion
    with this or that (vocal minority) 'developer community' doesn't make
    any sense from a business standpoint. And J. Random Internet pseudonym
    can rant and rave all he wants about that, it won't matter.

    Insulting me is a lot easier but even this doesn't really accomplish
    anyhing: It just highlights the lack of arguments in favor of the
    change.
    Rainer Weikusat, May 27, 2013
    #3
  4. Rainer Weikusat <> writes:
    > Ben Morrow <> writes:
    >> Quoth Rainer Weikusat <>:
    >>> ,----
    >>> | I suspect that the CPAN-hostile environment which still promotes
    >>> | CGI.pm as the state of the art in Perl overlaps strongly with the
    >>> | older-is-better-stability-over-all enterprise Linux distribution
    >>> | group, of which Red Hat for example won't provide Perl 5.20 for
    >>> | several years,
    >>> `----
    >>>
    >>> I also suspect that the fraction of people who have existing code they
    >>> don't want to see broken because of 'political attempts' to promote
    >>> this or that not-yet-abandoned wepp fremmwuerg strongly overlaps with
    >>> the fraction of people who have existing code they ....

    >>
    >> Oh, do shut up. Nobody cares about your paranoid ranting.

    >
    > That's exactly the kind of 'intelligent discussion' of possibly
    > far-reaching core perl API changes which has happened in this
    > particular area so far: I hate it. Whoever disagrees with me doesn't
    > count. Ergo: It is, for all practical purposes, unused, and can be
    > removed.


    Also, responding to obviously unfounded user concerns (assuming that
    they are 'obviously unfounded' which is not obvious to me) by
    accusing the people who voiced them of 'paranoid ranting' (which is
    code language for "I know something you don't know but I won't tell
    you because if I did, I couldn't slam you as ignorant imbecile in
    public anymore") is exactly the kind of 'welcoming empathy' which
    generates trust towards a 'developer community': They do whatever they
    want. If this hurst or discomforts someone, he's obvioulsy one of 'the
    wrong kind of people' and free to take all his silly problems on a
    long walk over a short plank.
    Rainer Weikusat, May 27, 2013
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ryan Mitchley
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    408
    Ryan Mitchley
    Jul 19, 2004
  2. Rainer Weikusat

    A remark

    Rainer Weikusat, Jun 11, 2012, in forum: Perl Misc
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    618
    Rainer Weikusat
    Jun 11, 2012
  3. Rainer Weikusat

    a remark about 'stability'

    Rainer Weikusat, May 26, 2013, in forum: Perl Misc
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    147
    Rainer Weikusat
    May 26, 2013
  4. Rainer Weikusat

    A remark about 'field hashes'

    Rainer Weikusat, Jun 18, 2013, in forum: Perl Misc
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    153
    George Mpouras
    Jun 19, 2013
  5. Stefan Ram

    Early Remark about Applet security

    Stefan Ram, Dec 8, 2013, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    160
    Arne Vajhøj
    Dec 10, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page