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

Re: Perl 7 or Perl 2013?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Peter Rabbitson
February 6, 2013 20:54
Re: Perl 7 or Perl 2013?
Message ID:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 02:44:52PM -0600, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Ricardo Signes wrote:
> >Furthermore, were Perl 7 to be released (secretly known to be Perl 5.20.0),
> >what would the outcome be?  It would gain attention, and people would say,
> I think the bigger problem is that by not allowing a Perl 7 (or 2013
> or 42), there's no way to offer a new Perl that's an evolution of
> Perl 5. It's Perl 5 the backwards compatible forever language or
> Perl 6 the revolution (which is coming soon?). So if someone had a
> serious proposal for a non backwards-compatible evolution of Perl 5
> (like, say, Moe) they're completely shut out of the Perl name.

Why is something that is almost Perl5 but not quite entitled to the 
"Perl" name? What is wrong with say "Moe"? I for one would be one of the 
first to retrofit all of my CPAN offerings to run on Moe *in addition* 
to the backwards compatible to boot language these offerings were 
designed for in the first place.

> Maybe the name just doesn't matter that much. If something like Moe
> is good enough, we'll all move to the moe-porters list and be done
> with it.

Not all, just those that deem it appropriate (and nothing wrong with that).

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