http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=11107861


in reply to Re^2: If Perl 5 were to become Perl 7, what (backward-compatible) features would you want to see?
in thread If Perl 5 were to become Perl 7, what (backward-compatible) features would you want to see?

How has the Python 2 to 3 transition been compared to the Perl to Raku experience? More of a nightmare for me since I've never had to deal with Raku.

With Raku using a different file extension it makes it easier to run both Perl and Raku on the same machine. But if updating Perl to version 7 means that we need to change Perl script file extensions and all the automated installs, environment variables, scheduled tasks, etc. that seems like a hassle. I don't see what the advantage is. The '.pl' extension is very well known. What if there is another application that uses '.p9' already? What happens when we get to '.p99'? Ok, that last question is a little tongue in cheek (meaning, not serious, with a wink and a grin). I don't think I'll be around to see Perl version 99 but you never know. It's just my two cents worth and I am not attacking Perl.

How poorly the Python upgrade has gone is irrelevant since they didn't change the file extension. If they had I suspect the upgrade would have been worse in the long run. Easier in the short term maybe. Giving up '.pl' seems like giving up the brand. In the *nix world I suppose it is irrelevant since they don't need to bother with extensions. Just set it as executable and put in the shebang and go.

Edit: typos.

  • Comment on Re^3: If Perl 5 were to become Perl 7, what (backward-compatible) features would you want to see?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: If Perl 5 were to become Perl 7, what (backward-compatible) features would you want to see?
by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Oct 22, 2019 at 22:14 UTC

    Yeah. Dunno. For my part I have never used the .pl except where itís a convention already in a given codebase. chmod +x is all I do. File extensions tell lies easily.