|
in reply to Will Perl 6 Replace Perl 5?
The languages have split a long time ago. Most people don't believe that Perl 6 is "the next version of Perl". The language is different enough that "Perl 6" isn't an appropriate name.
At the most recent London Perl Workshop, 'Perl 6' was only mentioned during a single lightning talk - and the plea was to call it something else (Rakudo was suggested). As the speaker (Edmund von der Burg) said: each time you say "Perl 6", Perl5 dies a little.
IMO, Rakudo (or Perl 6) will not make Perl 5 die, just as Ruby, PHP or Kurilla did not kill Perl 5. Perl 5 will only "die" if people stop maintaining it* - and even then it will die only slowly. It's only truely dead if noone uses it anymore.
* Which means that it's up to you (a generic you, not just Tony). Musing about whether Perl 5 will die or replaced by Perl 6 on Perlmonks doesn't help Perl 5 at all. If you want Perl 5 to keep living, contribute. Write patches. Write bug reports. Write tests. Add to the documentation. That matters. If people stop contributing, Perl 5 will die, regardless what Perl 6 will do. If people contribute, Perl 5 will live, regardless what Perl 6 will do. |
Re^2: Will Perl 6 Replace Perl 5?
by moritz (Cardinal) on Jan 04, 2010 at 13:44 UTC
|
Most people don't believe that Perl 6 is "the next version of
Perl".
That's what many people say, but when I engage them in discussion I find
that what many people actually mean is
Perl 6 is not the next version of Perl 5
Which is right, of course.
In some ways Perl 6 is quite different from previous Perl versions: it
breaks backwards compatibility, is developed in a different mode
(specification and test suite first, multiple implementations possible), has a
slightly different syntax.
But what makes a language Perl? It's only partly the syntax; it's mostly
the principles behind the language: DWIM, whipuptitude, TIMTOWTDI, (limited)
correspondence with natural language and so on.
I've written about
that before.
Still I can see why many Perl 5 programmers fear the "Perl6 is the next
Perl version" statement, and deny it because they fear it: It's not yet near
wide spread adoption, there's no clear migration path, it's not backwards
compatible, etc. That's why it's important to communicate clearly that it's
not the same situation as with gcc, for example: Users of gcc-$version will
eventually have to upgrade to gcc-$higher_version, because gcc-$version will
stop being maintained, and thus not being ported to modern CPU architectures,
libc version etc.
I don't see that risk for Perl 5 any time within the coming decade:
Even when we'll have a Perl 6 compiler that is fast, stable and portable, and
implements a sexy Perl version, tons of software and libraries will keep Perl
5 alive. And of course the stubborn programmers that just love Perl 5, and
will continue to love it even if "the next major version" is there.
Perl 6 - links to (nearly) everything that is Perl 6.
| [reply] |
|
|
I find that what many people actually mean isPerl 6 is not the next version of Perl 5 Which is right, of course.
Well, duh, that the latter is true is bloody obvious. Perl 5.10 isn't the next version of Perl 5.8 either.
I can't talk for the people you've engaged in discussion, but when I say that I think "Perl 6 isn't the next version of Perl", I mean it in the same way as if I say that I don't think that "Kurilla isn't the next version of Perl". Nor have I considered Ruby to be a version of Perl ('next', 'different', '...').
Still I can see why many Perl 5 programmers fear
Fear? Noone was talking about fear. And the people I talk to, don't fear Perl 6. Just as they don't fear Ruby. Of Java. Or C. Or any other existing or emerging language.
It's a bit cheap to dismiss people who refuse to drink the Perl 6 Kool-Aid as being fearful.
| [reply] |
|
|
Well, duh, that the latter is true is bloody obvious.
If you say it as clearly as I did, yes. But many people seem to expect that Perl 6 = Perl 5 + X, which it isn't, but which would make it a next version of Perl 5.
I'm still curious: What criteria would a language (any language) have to fulfill so that you would call it the next version of Perl?
Perl 6 - links to (nearly) everything that is Perl 6.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
For me it comes down to a couple questions. And I've got a feel that these are some of the actual questions many people are looking for answers for:
- When will Perl 6.0(.0) be stabilized?
- Which Perl 6.(* + 1, 2, ...) is expected to not break Perl 6.*
- When will the developers of the spec consider it stable enough to value back-compatibility and/or ease of upgrade over progress?
- When's Rakudo expected to catch up with the former?
- Will I be able to use the CPAN?
- When will I be able to use the CPAN, and how much of it?
Personally, I think I know many of the answers, but they're probably outdated because I'll personally probably be on Perl 5 unless there's either a strong access to CPAN or CPAN like functionality, or Perl 6.* is stable enough for casually writing CPAN modules without frequent breakuppage.
So, in essence, people might say "Perl 6" and not "Perl 6.0.0," because they don't know the planned versioning scheme for the specification, or the version of the specification that is planned for the above language criteria.
EDIT: Mixed up some versions in the list
Ordinary morality is for ordinary people. -- Aleister Crowley
| [reply] |
|
|
Chromatic's whole point is there wont be a 6.0.0 ever. As a matter of fact he is telling the version number is just a farce. Rather there will monthly releases and star releases. Now we have to decide for ourselves what is stable and ready for us to use in our environments.
Meanwhile with every monthly release bugs, get fixed, things get stable, new things get added.
Although he is completely correct in concept, I don't it will help the Perl PR. Rather it will be a disaster
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re^2: Will Perl 6 Replace Perl 5?
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Jan 03, 2010 at 23:58 UTC
|
Most people don't believe that Perl 6 is "the next version of Perl".
Citation please.
The language is different enough that "Perl 6" isn't an appropriate name.
The one person who gets to choose the name disagrees.
... each time you say "Perl 6", Perl5 dies a little.
If only that had been true of Perl 5 and Perl 4! Then again, I suppose that adding lexical variables, first-class functions, method dispatch, a library system, and true nested data structures is less of a leap than adding function signatures, a metamodel, multi dispatch, grammars, continuations, junctions, hyperoperators, pervasive laziness, ubiquitous blocks, and I've forgotten a few.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
I have a lot of faith in the person who gets to decide what "Perl" is; after all, he's spent the last 22+ years designing a language family, leading implementation efforts, and developing a community around a project that's influenced my career and hobbies for the good in countless ways.
Complaining that a Perl with multi-dispatch or function signatures or grammars or junctions or laziness or a metamodel built in or defaults that ask the compiler and runtime to report warnings and errors has a higher version number than a Perl that doesn't... well, I don't understand.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| [reply] |
|
|
Re^2: Will Perl 6 Replace Perl 5?
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jan 04, 2010 at 01:17 UTC
|
each time you say "Perl 6", Perl5 dies a little.
I think he got it ass back'ards!
It is with great regret that I say, that each time this OP comes up, in the absence of its presence, it is Perl 6 that dies a little.
"la petite mort."--but not in the good way.
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.
| [reply] |
|
|
It is with great regret that I say, that each time this OP comes up, in the absence of its presence, it is Perl 6 that dies a little.
Surprisingly enough, though, software (and this includes programming language implementations) won't get written faster by people asking about it or complaining that it isn't written yet. This holds even more true if you want the software to be tried-and-tested to the point that it's usable.
What you need is a community of people, some of whom implement the thing, some who triage tests or bug reports, and some who write applications and stress-test the language. For that to happen, you need to encourage (some would say "hype") people into wanting to contribute. To top it off, Perl 6 in itself seems to attract people due to some of its features.
So, expectations are high, but it's partly because they need to be. Or you might help figure out another way to build a community besides having something worth forming a community around.
| [reply] |
|
|
won't get written faster by people asking about it
That was kinda my point.
or complaining that it isn't written yet.
By which you're implying that I should try my head for size in the hat of the non-contributor, and thence align myself in the sights of the fickle finger of blame.
But if you wish to go that route, then you should consider the numbers of non-contributors--and more importantly--the numbers of ex-contributors, and ask the question: Why so many of the tens of thousands(?) that were caught up with the Pugs initiative fell by the wayside.
For that to happen, you need to encourage (some would say "hype") people into wanting to contribute.
And finally...that is exactly the point I was making. Each time the OP appears, (has to be asked), and the response is so low-key and dismissive, la petite mort goes a little deeper; spreads a little further; lasts a little longer.
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.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
