|| ||Dave Rolsky <autarch-AT-urth.org> |
|| ||perl5-porters-AT-perl.org |
|| ||Re: Perl 7 or Perl 2013? |
|| ||Wed, 6 Feb 2013 14:44:52 -0600 (CST)|
|| ||Article, Thread
On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Ricardo Signes wrote:
> Furthermore, were Perl 7 to be released (secretly known to be Perl 5.20.0),
> what would the outcome be? It would gain attention, and people would say,
I think the bigger problem is that by not allowing a Perl 7 (or 2013 or
42), there's no way to offer a new Perl that's an evolution of Perl 5.
It's Perl 5 the backwards compatible forever language or Perl 6 the
revolution (which is coming soon?). So if someone had a serious proposal
for a non backwards-compatible evolution of Perl 5 (like, say, Moe)
they're completely shut out of the Perl name.
Maybe the name just doesn't matter that much. If something like Moe is
good enough, we'll all move to the moe-porters list and be done with it.
But still, it's hard not to be frustrated when it feels like people with a
significant interest in the future of Perl 5-like languages are told that
all future version numbers belong to a project that has significantly
fewer users, developers, and mindshare than the existing Perl 5 language
I'm 100% okay with how long Perl 6 has taken, and this shouldn't be taken
as a criticism of that project. I think it's an interesting project, and
it's spurred a lot of good Perl 5 development. Maybe ten years from now
I'll be programming in Perl 6 on a day to day basis. But Larry's
insistence on squatting the Perl 5+X (for X >= 1) names is more and more
starting to seem like a rejection of reality, and is less justified the
longer Perl 6 takes, and the less involved he is with Perl 5.
Your guide to all that's veg House Absolute(ly Pointless)
to post comments)