Re: Amicable divorce (The Camel Paradox)

You are advocating a clean break from backwards compatibility?

I'm curious, how will this new language compete against JS, Ruby and Python? Will it start with a dominant market position like PHP?

Why wouldn't it share the niche fate of Perl 6 or cperl or ... (name a branch)?

I think if you want a break, it would be far easier to implement a Perlish syntax on top of Javascript to succeed.

I agree with you that most discussions are fruitless because most players only see their own use cases and fail to speak a common "language" (sic ;)

My take on this is to keep one language (read "engine") which is tailored by "master" pragmas to those needs.

Perl's selling point being:

"yes it's deeper than the specialists like bash or python, ...

... but you don't need to learn different languages to fill all these use cases" °

See also The Camel Paradox

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)

Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

°) /and if you stick to your niche's master pragma it's even not that much more difficult.

Comment on Re: Amicable divorce (The Camel Paradox)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Amicable divorce (The Camel Paradox) by ribasushi (Pilgrim) on Jul 06, 2020 at 10:02 UTC
> You are advocating a clean break from backwards compatibility? I am definitely not advocating this. Some, however, do. All your questions are excellent, and you should ask them in the corresponding threads. What I am interested in is that /usr/bin/perl doesn't get to go on a risky roadtrip along with Perl.	[reply]
Re^3: Amicable divorce (The Camel Paradox) by LanX (Saint) on Jul 06, 2020 at 10:14 UTC
> What I am interested in is that /usr/bin/perl doesn't get to go on a risky roadtrip along with Perl. What does that mean? Are you saying that Linux distributions might abandon system Perl? > you should ask them in the corresponding threads I can't cope with P5P. It reminds me about the story (myth?) how the Bolsheviks dominated the Russian parliament after revolution, just by delaying decisions till the majority was too tired to attend discussions. Instead of redesigning the language we should rather start by redesigning the politics. And design decisions should be based on proof of concepts, not spectacular presentations and random commit bits. Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]
Re^4: Amicable divorce (The Camel Paradox) by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Jul 06, 2020 at 11:15 UTC
It reminds me about the story (myth?) how the Bolsheviks dominated the Russian parliament after revolution, just by delaying decisions till the majority was too tired to attend discussions. FWIW, I heard this same approximate story from a political science professor at my university in 1987. He also told us that the USSR was going to collapse at any time and it was an open secret at the diplomatic level. When history proved him right, I wished I’d listened more closely to everything he said in class. :P	[reply]
Re^4: Amicable divorce (The Camel Paradox) by ribasushi (Pilgrim) on Jul 06, 2020 at 11:27 UTC
Linux distributions might abandon system Perl? I suspect this is not a rhetorical question. The answer is: not only "might": this is already happening at dizzying speed. The current promise to gentrify your oneliners at all costs does not help reverse that trend.	[reply]
Re^5: Amicable divorce (The Camel Paradox) by LanX (Saint) on Jul 06, 2020 at 11:42 UTC
Re^5: Amicable divorce (The Camel Paradox) by chromatic (Archbishop) on Jul 06, 2020 at 16:49 UTC
Re^6: Amicable divorce (The Camel Paradox) by ribasushi (Pilgrim) on Jul 12, 2020 at 01:43 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here


laziness, impatience, and hubris
	PerlMonks