develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from June 2006

Re: Its time we set the score straight on Perl 5 and Perl 6 and debunk our own self-generated FUD.

June 19, 2006 23:38
Re: Its time we set the score straight on Perl 5 and Perl 6 and debunk our own self-generated FUD.
Message ID:
On 6/20/06, Chip Salzenberg <> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 06:50:14PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> > On Monday 19 June 2006 18:36, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > > You win the thread. Old software doesn't so much die as creak and grind
> > > slowly to a halt, and that's what's been happening to the users' view of
> > > Perl 5 for a while now.
> >
> > Did you both *find* and *ask* a user?  'cuz said user isn't me, Chip, Abigail,
> > Yves, or pretty much anyone reading or responding to this thread.
> Indeed, but that only serves to make my point, albeit in a roundabout way, as
> an illustration of self-selection bias.  Of *course* current Perl users (and
> especially those who participate in p5p) don't care about the slow pace of
> core development, because the ones who -do- care have wandered away, perhaps
> to Ruby or some other language; or, partly due to lack of buzz from friends,
> they never arrived.  Your observation is like holding a vote as to whether
> Thursday night is a good time for meetings, on Thursday night.
> I didn't suggest "Perl 5 is dead" or even "dying"; I think that can't
> possibly happen for decades, even in a worst-case scenario.  OTOH, "Perl 5 is
> perceived as stagnant by too many potential users, and the user base is no
> longer growing much, if at all" I suspect is already true to within epsilon.
> The earlier anecdote about publishers saying that the book market for Perl is
> played out is, IMO, a significant warning sign.

Well said.

> Meanwhile, in CPAN the user community is quite remarkably active, which is
> wonderful of course.  But without active user-visible feature deltas to the
> Perl core, the psychological momentum that draws people to the language is
> reduced, entirely because Random::Module doesn't get the press.  More press
> on CPAN modules could be much of a cure, assuming I've got the right diagnosis.

Also moving more commonly used modules into core perl, making the core
perl experience more usable would improve the lot of many, many, many
a perl developer who is limited by policy that they cannot form
dependencies on modules that arent in core. A group that I think is
much larger and IMO much more important than the "minimal core" types


perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/" Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About