Re: [PATCH] doc: add technical/whyperl

[Eric Wong <e@yhbt.net>]

Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com> wrote:
> No substantial comments, just some typos spotted while reading through.

Thanks :>

> Eric Wong <e@yhbt.net> writes:
> 
> > +As always, comments and corrections and additions welcome at
> 
> s/welcome/are welcome/ ?

Umm... I guess?  Would omitting "are" would only be valid
if there were a single item?

	As always, $FOO welcome at

Upon a second read of the original, having "and" twice doesn't
read well to me.  So final form should probably be:

	As always, comments, corrections and additions are welcome at

> > +* Predictable performance
> > +
> > +  While Perl is neither fast or memory-efficient, its
> 
> s/or/nor/

I had to look that up, but yes, "nor" belongs there.

> > +  performance and memory use are predictable and does not
> 
> s/does/do/
> 
> > +  require GC tuning by the user.

I think "does" reads better, there, but the sentence runs on
for too long.  I don't think the GC part needs to be there(*)
Perhaps just:

	While Perl is neither fast nor memory-efficient, its
	performance and memory use are predictable.

(*) I think memory management requires a standalone document.

> > +  Low hardware requirements increases the reach of our software
> 
> s/increases/increase/

Yes.  I think my original wording was more about a continual
process (which it is):

	Lowering hardware requirements increases

But I edited it since requirements have always been fairly low.

> > +  Perl modules and bindings to common libraries such as
> > +  SQLite and Xapian are already distributed by many
> > +  GNU/Linux distros and BSD ports.
> > +
> > +  There should be no need to rely on language-specific
> > +  package managers such as cpan(1), those systems increase
> 
> s/, those/.  Those/

I was trying to decide between them.  I thought a separate
sentence would make it less obvious "those" was referring to
package managers.  In retrospect there's no ambiguity since
the entire paragraph is about language-specific package
managers.

> > +* Compactness and terseness
> > +
> > +  Less code generally means less bugs.  We try to avoid the
> 
> s/less bugs/fewer bugs/

I was thinking repeating "less" might be more memorable.
As in: "mo money, mo problems"; "less code, less bugs" :>
But yeah, "fewer" is probably better in a full sentence.

> > +* Lightweight threading
> > +
> > +  While lightweight threading implementations are
> > +  convenient, they tend to be significantly heavier than a
> > +  pure event-loop systems (or multi-threaded event-loop
> 
> s/a pure/pure/

Oops, yes.