develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2013

RE: Perl 7 or Perl 2013?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Green, Paul
February 6, 2013 18:03
RE: Perl 7 or Perl 2013?
Message ID:
I've been lurking on this list a long time and I sympathize with issue
of perception. I don't believe that the perception of "no change" is the
worst of perl's problems with adoption, but I do think it may be the
easiest issue to fix.


There is industry precedent for dropping the leading digit; Sun
Microsystems went down this path with Java. IIRC, instead of Java 1.6,
they called it Java 6. I believe that internally, it is still called
1.6. Firefox is burning up their version numbers rather rapidly. That
seems to be the current paradigm.


So I side with the folks that suggested that Perl 5.N simply be called
Perl N. But I would not apply this change retroactively. I'd pick a
future release, and start there. I'd also leave the internal version
numbering system alone, due to all of the interactions that depend upon


So yes, this change amounts to better marketing. That's worthwhile, in
my view.








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