Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Just another Perl shrine
 
PerlMonks  

Re^12: Ovid's take on the renaming of "Perl6" (updated)

by LanX (Saint)
on Sep 02, 2019 at 19:57 UTC ( [id://11105469]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^11: Ovid's take on the renaming of "Perl6"
in thread Ovid's take on the renaming of "Perl6"

I'm a fan of clean names that avoid confusion. Perl++ would be an accurate description of the intent and draw a direct analog to C++.

How a backwards compatible successor to Perl5 should be named ... no idea. Maybe leaping to 10 like Autocad did?

But I agree that this must be accompanied with clear improvements like signatures (and/or an OO System).

Anything else would be quickly ridiculed as marketing gag.

> that Perl 6 hurt Perl 5 particularly or in the grand scheme.

I claim Osborning, AFAIK Perl5 releases in the 200x years were rare because everybody was expecting Perl6 to arrive. That's a normal psychological effect.

And when Perl6 was officially released I personally witnessed the aftermath of a very strange and loud discussion of my clients to switch as soon as possible to the "newer version".

Cheers Rolf
(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery FootballPerl is like chess, only without the dice

PS: FWIW: you may want to watch my talk about "The Camel Paradox" (not sure if slides and sound are out of sync or if I was in Muppet mode again ;-)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^13: Ovid's take on the renaming of "Perl6" (updated)
by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Sep 02, 2019 at 21:18 UTC
    Perl5 releases in the 200x years were rare because everybody was expecting Perl6 to arrive.

    My memory is that the porter list was already bogged down to a near standstill and it had little to nothing to do with Perl 6 because there was already a complete schism of attitudes and a growing abandonment of Perl 5, not because of the promise of Perl 6 but the lack of agreement on features and backcompat and the open road of Ruby and Python and the corporate enforcement of Java. It was a small handful of devs who sparked the renaissance around 2005 and the following years and—not to take away from the amazing, crucial, gracious work and dedication of folks like dave_the_m—it was entirely framework based. Even a piece of crap like PHP will thrive with useful, easily deployed, applications/frameworks.

    Yahoo and Amazon both decided to abandon Perl completely independently of Perl 6. I was at Amazon when it happened and it was a year, maybe 18 months, before Jon Orwant threw those mugs.

    Perl 6, to me, is about 10th on the list of Perl 5 problems (with PHP, Ruby, Python, Java, and others taking all top slots) while still in the top set of things that helped it survive. Even today, infighting over Perl 6 is worse than Perl 6 ever was… ECMAScript is the most likely candidate to relegate Perl 5 to permanent maintenance mode.

      But can you tell how many talents never tried to join p5p or didn't try to suggest improvements because Perl 6 was on its way?

      Ruby was a shock for me after I realized how close it semantically was to Perl 5.

      Top Perl 5 with

      • Smalltalk'ish OOP
      • function signatures
      • better code blocks
      • autoboxing of primitives to wrapper classes
      • basic support for DSL's
      And you have basically Ruby, just twice as fast.

      Update

      And the perception of a dieing language came because such improvements couldn't be forged into a newer version.

      PHP 5 came with a standard OO system while Perl is still promoting dozens of competing CPAN frameworks 1 1/2 decades later.

      A vision and a roadmap would have helped for sure.

      > ECMAScript is the most likely candidate to relegate Perl 5 to permanent maintenance mode

      Not only Perl. And TypeScript is gaining even more speed.

      Cheers Rolf
      (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
      Wikisyntax for the Monastery FootballPerl is like chess, only without the dice

        PHP 5 came with a standard OO system while Perl is still promoting dozens of competing CPAN frameworks a decade later.

        Long may it continue to do so. I consider this a strength of Perl, not a weakness.

        Better code WHAT? You mean the insanity with Yeyeieieield? A confusing special syntax for methods taking just one lambda (sorry, code block) while the syntax in case you dare to need to pass two is totally different and even more confusing?

        Jenda
        1984 was supposed to be a warning,
        not a manual!

        PHP 5 came with a standard OO system while Perl is still promoting dozens of competing CPAN frameworks 1 1/2 decades later.

        That's just nonsense. First, Perl doesn't promote one, another, or any CPAN OO frameworks. Perl is a language. Second, overwhelmingly most professional Perl programmers I am aware of use Moo, with some sticking to the predecessor Moose. No one I know uses bless, and there is no steep learning curve to

        package MyClass; use Moo; has some_attr => ( is => 'ro' ); sub some_func { uc(shift->some_attr) } # eg 1;
        Maybe you should sit down and spend a couple of hours with one of Gabor's tutorials and gain some relevant skills instead of just yammering about historical meta-questions and adding more and more confusion to the debate through your ill-informed commmentary?


        The way forward always starts with a minimal test.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://11105469]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others musing on the Monastery: (8)
As of 2024-03-28 09:58 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found