Re: [OT] Re: Perl Doesn't Suck
[email protected] Sat, 30 Jun 2001 17:14:47 -0400
| Newsgroups | perl.perl6.meta |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 01:49:45PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote: > Perl's great blessing is also it's great curse; there's a single > implementation and that *implementation* happens to be OpenSource. > Try writing a second Perl implementation from scratch. Fortunately, we don't have to. :) Perl 6 should have a more fathomable design, or at least better documented. I don't think it'll ever reach the sort of standards that things like Java and C++ have. Then again, have you LOOKED at the ANSI C++ standard? ;) > Were something dreadful to happen to Larry and his estate chose to > change the licensing terms of the current *implementation* In that Highly Unlikely event, we can simply fork off the source code from the point where the license changed. License changes are not retroactive. The only restriction is we couldn't call it 'perl' under the AL. I don't think such a thing has ever happened to a major Open Source project, this doesn't worry me. The license squabbling between the various BSD's is similar, but they're all still Open. > where would Perl6 go? Same place its going right now, as there's no code. :) -- Michael G Schwern <[email protected]> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ Perl6 Quality Assurance <[email protected]> Kwalitee Is Job One