Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Clear questions and runnable code
get the best and fastest answer

Re: The future of Perl?

by vkon (Curate)
on Dec 13, 2014 at 12:27 UTC ( #1110270=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to The future of Perl?

I have good and bad news for you,
bad news come first:

my expression is this - all new software mostly scripted with python - KDE GUI stuff (kig etc) or editors (e.g. notepad++ or sublime or whatever), the further we go the less perl support is.

python gained much momentum, and - I join the opinion - that damage bringed into community by perl6 in its current state is huge and continuing.

Perl5 is much better than python, but python is better maintained - e.g. look at Qt support - python have latest Qt5, perl have NONE...

now the good news:

  • the situation is not likely to become worse than now, it is mostly stabilised.
  • And you can often use Inline::Python, for
    • either utilising forgotten CPAN library (so you can use Qt from Perl using python support)
    • or just to reuse new library that is available only for python

Fortunately Inline::Python is in a great shape now, and sponsored by grant.

I only miss one thing - - which is abandoned and not available at their site - maybe Stefan Seifert (author of Inline::Python) will help me with this?
if so - nothing to worry about, the future is bright, :)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: The future of Perl?
by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Dec 13, 2014 at 21:04 UTC
    that damage bringed into community by perl6 in its current state is huge and continuing.

    This is nonsense and Iím tired of seeing it here without the slightest supporting logic or evidence.

    Perl5 was zooming up to a dead end 15 years ago; there was a ton of infighting, apathy, unwillingness to look outside, big gaps between releases, and attitude of if you wonít do it my way Iím taking my commit bit and going home. Perl6 shook that up, broke things loose, and got a lot of new persons interested in Perl5 and moving it forward. The Perl5 renaissance that began c 2004 might have never happened without the Perl6 efforts. Moose, MOP, Moo, Mouse, and the advances that have arguably made Perl5 a superior OO language to Python and Ruby and Java only came in because of Perl6 discussions and dreams.

      Moose, MOP, Moo, Mouse, and the advances that have arguably made Perl5 a superior OO language to Python and Ruby and Java

      I'd like to see that argument!

      I'm not against it; I'd just like to see:

      1. the benefits of Moose/Mop/et al. laid out;
      2. a comparison with the OO in those other languages.

      My perception of Moose is that it is an expensive getter/setter generator. My perception of MOP is that is provides for introspection -- that has few if any legitimate uses.

      I'd like to be persuaded that I'm wrong.

      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.

        Up front: I am not the right one for the job; I am largely recycling things Iíve read and heard. My experience domain in OO in other languages is sparse. So, Iíll rely on an expert!

        I'd say the Moose OO model is far more powerful and useful than Python's. Roles, method modifiers, lazy builders, delegation and coercion are all really good for reducing repetitive code and improving OO design. With enough work most of that can be emulated in Python, but Moose gives it to you straight out of the box. ĖRe: Python OO v Moose

        Perl supports a vast ground of different techniques and does not hinder from crossbreeding or intermixing. Types + coercion for example, only hinted in the quote, can be bondage oriented or loose and accommodating or anything in between. You can write Perl that does what Java does in the way it does it (though private methods and such are less fun, you know they can be done in at least a couple ways; anonymous/lexical code and inside-out). You canít do the reverse. Every personal sweet spot in between is possible in Perl. And though some languagesóas I understand it, Iím *not* a xlang OO exert in the slightestómake some of the techniques easier and remove some of the bad behavior (like methods bumping into functions)Ö still Perl can do it.

        Now to recycle another thing someone else said recently: The main problem with Perl isnít Perl, itís that while the CPAN is enormous, Perl at large is not grounded enough in complete, out of the box, applications. WordPress or Wikimedia would have been easy to write in Perl for example but the ethos of the Perl community, in my estimation, finds it more fun to work on gears than complete machinesÖ Iíve thought a lot about this and Iíve never come to any conclusions; why, is it better, should, could it change? PHP only exists and flourished, in my view, not because Perl couldnít do what it ended up being but because the Perl hackers of the day wouldnít.

        I ducked most of the real question, I know. It would be a good bit of work to address for someone who is an expert. It would be a three month research project for me. :P

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1110270]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others romping around the Monastery: (2)
As of 2022-08-14 04:18 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found