Subject: Re: Perl 7 or Perl 2013?
Date: Wednesday 6th February 2013 20:44:52 UTC (over 5 years ago)
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 (and community). 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. -dave /*============================================================ http://VegGuide.org http://blog.urth.org Your guide to all that's veg House Absolute(ly Pointless) ============================================================*/