Good joke. :-)

No, it's not joke.

If Perl6 did today, 90% of what Perl5 already does -- with 90% or even 70% of the performance that Perl5 does it -- it would be usable for many non-performance critical applications with the benefits of cleaner syntax and easier maintenance now; and the promise of lots of good stuff to come in the future.

Marketing it would be a simple as demonstrating the concise, clarity of like for like code against Perl5, Python, Ruby et al.

That would be enough to encourage early adopters and start both discussion and the exploration of what it is capable of. From that would come the kick-starter application, and interest, and a wider audience and wider contribution. It could then sink or swim on its own merits rather than on sound-bite marketeering, dubious statistics or patriarchal request.

Marketing based on giving people what they want -- rather than making them want what you have got -- is more reliable; more honest; and actually quite easy.

And people want a cleaner, clearer, simpler, more orthogonal Perl, and have done for a long time. But they are not prepared to throw the baby out with the bath water.

No, it's not joke.

Then the "tragedy" statement applies.
I cannot argue with (shortened quote):

if ... would ... would ... would ... would ... could ..."

It is neither wrong nor right. It's not verifiable, and highly hypothetic (see quote). More hope than fact, actually. Sure, if all these would's and could's would be in place, you could hope that some early adopter would catch on.

Yes.

So what? Then of course you'd hope that some kind of bootstrap process comes into existence, and the incoming adopters start to be less and less "early", until we have a Perl6 hype and girls start tearing of their shirts if they see a guy wearing a Perl6 T-shirt. Yeah. Why not? Phantasies are not illegal.

Unfortunately my estimate of the situation (and of your estimate of the situation) differs significantly. You completely/elegantly ignored the ROI topic I pointed to. You know - even todays early adopters aren't what they used to be. Significant amounts of early adopters - I mean. Sure, in todays worldwide IT-crowd counting tens of millions (possibly more) you will find a few die-hards that can adopt almost anything. If you hope for that, then I agree. Yes, that can happen.

But try to be honest to yourself. Do you really expect, that from this early adoption would come the kick-starter application, and interest, and a wider audience and wider contribution possibly even self-sustaining? As I wrote above: more hope than fact.

Please don't get me wrong. I too see Perl6 as promising. However, at the current moment I do not see anything of relevance being done to offer at least some Perl6 ROI. Not even for early adopters. (please do not confuse early adopters with temporary tryout hackers)

However, in my humblest opinion, that situation would radically change, 180°, if there was a Perl5 to Perl6 converter. Here I agree with your 90% estimate. Maybe even 80%. If it could automatically convert 80% of the pure-perl CPAN modules to Perl6 ... BINGO! You would:

• Have proof, that Perl5 and Perl6 are entangled sister projects that benefit each other
• Perl6 would benefit (huge surge of resources)
• Perl5 would benefit (opened migration path)

Until then, Perl6 is - and I would like to quote Richard Foley here - "Basically an excercise in academic masturbation". And I quote Richard here, because I do agree with him. As me the perl hacker, and me the upper management guy.

Why is such a converter not being done? Because it's hard I'm being told. Sorry. Before such a thing is not "in place" I - as a manager - cannot take Perl6 seriously. However, IF such a thing is in place, I most certainly know, that I would authorize the migration of some in-company tools (not customer projects - I'm not that bold) to Perl6.

And allow me the corollary, that during the development of such a converter, Perl6 - the language - would gain a development boost, because now it would have at least some code being benchmarked with.

Sorry if anyone is insulted by anything I wrote - just trying to express my sincere opinion.

propaganda.pm - Not just another Perl Mongers Group.

You completely/elegantly ignored the ROI topic I pointed to.

Your link lead me to a blank 'Sign Up to see the Wonderful Goodies' page. I haven't stuck my hand in a lucky dip box since I was a kid.

Unfortunately my estimate of the situation (and of your estimate of the situation) differs significantly.

Yes. Does that make you automatically right?

If Perl6 is so obviously dead in the water, why are you bothering to attack it?

I would like to quote ...

Ah! Appeals to -- for all intents and purposes, random -- higher authority, the last chance saloon of unreasoned zealotry.

Do you quote him because he is right, or is he right because you quote him?

that situation would radically change, 180°, if there was a Perl5 to Perl6 converter.

And now finally to the agenda. But, are you promoting a converter you have written; or recruiting for the magic bullet you perceive?

If you ever unlock that door to your vision, we might find out.

In all likelihood this is just another 'I've a great idea and I've written a thesis and knocked up a web page to present it; now all I need are some donkeys to do the work' to raise my phfantastical vision to reality; but I'll keep an open mind for now.

If it could automatically convert 80% of the pure-perl CPAN modules to Perl6 ... BINGO!

Sorry, but I think you are wrong. Indeed, I think that perhaps the second worst thing that could happen to Perl6 is the creation of such a tool. Why?

• Because some large percentage of the Pure-perl modules are dross unworthy of persisting.

  Large numbers of the modules on CPAN are newbies first goes at writing modules; 90% boiler plate; 10% wasted effort.

  Ranging from: trivial OOified replications of; or ill-conceived "corrections" to; misunderstood built-in functionality.

  To: badly designed, or badly written, or clumsy interfaced, or theoretically pure but with horrible performance, or just plain broken. And sometimes all of those.

  Written as stand alone projects without the benefit of real world application, in order to gain experience, or simply to have a presence on CPAN to which they can point prospective employers/customers. Token gestures of 'contribution'.

• Because it would lead to the persistence of the whole never-mind-the-quality-feel-the-width ethos that pervades unknowing's view of CPAN today.

  There are probably less than 100 (certainly less than 500) vital, critical, modules on CPAN -- ie. those that fulfill 90% of the use statements seen in the wild. And most of them will have an XS component that would prevent automated conversion.

  And of those that are pure-Perl, the best, most used, most indispensable ones will make extensive use of all of the quirks and guru-tricks that at the same time, make Perl5 so powerful and productive; but also, so difficult for initiates and part-timers.

  For you magic converter to be able to port these, Perl6 would need to replicate all of the "bad behaviours" -- bugs-made-features; quirks and dark corners -- that are the reasons for both its existence and the desire to have it. And if Perl6 did that, it would be little better than Perl5 and lead to all the same problems.

• It would concentrate the efforts of the must-have-a-presence-on-CP6AN developers in exactly all the wrong places.

  A line for line conversion of Perl5 to Perl6 won't benefit from what makes Perl6 so desirable. Instead of looking at the requirements and then using the power and elegance of Perl6 to satisfy them in the best way it can; effort would be concentrated in finding boiler-plate replacements for Perl5 idioms and then applying them as widely as possible.

• It would encourage and facilitate the persistence of the scatter-gun approach to library design that is characteristic of the 90's approach to language library design in general and of CPAN in particular.

  The whole free-for-all for top-level name-spaces; and stick-it-in-wherever, uncoordinated approach to getting-it-out-there. A first-come longest-lived and highest profile namespace landgrab, with a total lack of control over either logical structure or quality.

  Step back and take a look at the way library design has evolved in other languages. Java and C++ are good starting points. Look at the STL of the C++98 and the STD::* classes of C++11. The wide, deep, meandering of the former and the concentrated, coordinated, minimalism of the latter.

  To succeed, Perl6 needs CP6AN to be designed, coordinated and controlled.

• Automatically generated/converted code is crap.

  If you start with bad code prior to conversion, you'll end up with worse code after it.

  The Perl6 core libraries need to be designed to the strengths of Perl6; and written using the best of Perl6 idioms. Anything less will serve as a bad reference for new authors and reflect badly on Perl6 as a whole.

Logic dictates that if the first examples of Perl6 -- its libraries -- that people encounter are bad examples; then that is what they will write. And that would be the final nail in the coffin that has been sat, ready & waiting in the corner for a very long time.

---

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

You completely/elegantly ignored the ROI topic I pointed to.

Twas not so hard. The linked page requires login and password.