develooper Front page | perl.bootstrap | Postings from July 2000

Re: Working Group Proposal

Monty Taylor
July 24, 2000 05:11
Re: Working Group Proposal
Message ID:
 > > I surely hope that perl6 isn't going to be made for the people
> > in Java or Python.
> Well, I was talking in terms of PR value. I like perl's syntax just fine,
> but being constrained by its extensive hairiness. I'm trusting that
> 'reasonable' LALR grammars can be made which closely approximate the current
> syntax.
> Right now, I have trouble enough convincing people to upgrade
> to 5.6. There are two groups - those that use perl and those that don't.
> For those that use perl, there aren't enough compelling reasons to make the
> upgrade (5.005_03 is just fine) and for those that don't use perl, they are
> swayed by perl's bad PR.

But if they don't REALLY use Perl, then there really isn't a great need
for them to upgrade. Eventually, RedHat or IBM or Sun or whoever release
OS updates will migrate them to Perl 5.6. Lot's of people don't upgrade
to the latest version of GCC as soon as it's available either. Does that
mean GCC needs better PR. 
> IMO, a rewrite should have two main goals, an engineering goal an a PR goal.
> In the best case scenario, the two should re-enforce each other.
> > Is perl6 going to be for Perl programmers, or is it going to be one big
> > PR stunt?
> I would assume that it would be both.

Maybe I'm just thick, but what kind of PR does a programming language
need? I personally prefer things that have value and merit in and of
themselves. If I need a salesman to convince me to use it, I probably
don't need it. Why does Perl have 'bad PR'? What does that mean? And
what are we going to change about Perl that would change that?

Monty Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About