in reply to Curious about Perl's strengths in 2018
In the betamax vs VHS of computer languages, Perl is VHS; but it lost anyway.
Why? Is a deep, painful and complicated question, but sums up to:complacency. And the archives of this place are the evidence.
An integral part of that, is also the plague of OSS in general:cliquism. Which to lesser Eng.lit. mortals means: the propensity to subdivide rather than reach a compromise; but with a twist.
Whilst there are a billion(*) varieties of Linux, because noone group can decide what it should be; there is only one Perl, because no-one outside the ruling clique -- which includes the author, who is also on the outside looking in -- is allowed to suggest, much less make, changes. Stagnation rules.
That false god of antiquity, namely 'backward compatibility', has been deemed all-powerful and sacrosanct, by the anointed -- for the most part by virtue of being around at the time -- few, with the result that even fixes aren't allowed to break even the most broken and ill-designed of existing 'working code'. The result is inevitable: stagnation.
Circa 2005, perl's core code needed to be re-written for the modern world. I'm talking internally, not semantics. Less global state; less God objects; less magic; less 'only Perl can parse Perl; in a way, less TIMTOWTDI, but to a very small extent. Perl, circa 5.10.1 was nearly the perfect base from which to take over the world; but it was too hard. In testament to the vision and skill and genius of the original author, perl's internals proved impenetrable to refactoring at anything more than the most superficial of levels, so those in the-clique settled, for ongoing mediocrity. And here we are today.
Some will condemn me -- and this -- as the ravings of an anti-Perl outsider; nothing could be further from the truth. Having once condemned Perl to being a "read-only language", I learnt to first hate; then accept the need for; learn to work with; then admire; and finally, love Perl. And I still do.
It's only perl I am critical of. And if/when you come to understand that dichotomy, will you begin to understand the pain it causes me to write this. To write, what I consider to be, the truth about Perl.
(*)292 more or less different distributions the last time I counted.)
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^2: Curious about Perl's strengths in 2018
by dave_the_m (Monsignor) on Apr 14, 2018 at 20:46 UTC | |
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 15, 2018 at 19:13 UTC | |
by LanX (Saint) on Apr 15, 2018 at 21:05 UTC | |
by dave_the_m (Monsignor) on Apr 15, 2018 at 22:57 UTC | |
by LanX (Saint) on Apr 16, 2018 at 00:22 UTC | |
by dave_the_m (Monsignor) on Apr 16, 2018 at 10:14 UTC | |
| |
Re^2: Curious about Perl's strengths in 2018
by Laurent_R (Canon) on Apr 14, 2018 at 21:10 UTC | |
Re^2: Curious about Perl's strengths in 2018
by LanX (Saint) on Apr 13, 2018 at 00:14 UTC | |
Re^2: Curious about Perl's strengths in 2018
by karlgoethebier (Abbot) on Apr 13, 2018 at 17:44 UTC |