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

Re: Perl 7 or Perl 2013?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
February 7, 2013 01:00
Re: Perl 7 or Perl 2013?
Message ID:
Note, I've grouped all my responses into 1 post for thread organization.

Peter Rabbitson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 01:45:27PM -0500, Ricardo Signes wrote:
>> This topic has come up many times in the past few years.  It is generally in
>> the form "let's call the next one Perl 7" or "let's hide the 5 and call it
>> version 18" and sometimes "Perl $Year."
>> These all say, "Perl is the language, and Perl 6 is something irrelevant."
>> This is specifically in contradiction to Larry, who has *specifically* and
>> *repeatedly* addressed this point in keynotes and other public presentations.
>> We can't call it "Perl {$x>5}" without contradicting Larry and if some folks
>> are interested in organizing a committee to badger Larry *even more* about this
>> issue, the most I can really do is say that this isn't the place to do organize
>> such a committee.  I'd also like to say that this has been addressed so many
>> times that further pressing of the issue seems inappropriate.

The internet drama from contradicting Larry will be free advertising for 
Perl 5. It is better than typical perl articles

> But this sidesteps a *very* thorny but nevertheless real problem - Larry 
> has no interest in Perl5. He is interested in the evolution of Perl. 
> Currently this is the soon to be ready (for real, no christmas puns) 
> Perl6. But I am pretty sure he has no plans whatsoever for future 
> maintenance releases of Perl5 or anything like that. Does this mean that 
> this list will automatically disappear once Perl6 ships? Or will it 
> disappear 2-3 years after that after the bugs get finally ironed out of 
> Perl6? I don't think so.

What stopping anyone from just upload Perl 6.2 (ex 5.18) to CPAN and be 
done with it? A trademark lawsuit? Perl 6 the specification doesn't have 
floating point version numbers AFAIK, and there will never be "the Perl 
6 engine" by definition.

> This is a valid point from a technical perspective. But perception wise 
> it seems to be false. I can not explain it. I myself am disgusted by the 
> notion of Firefox 231.11. Yet it seems to work for them. *Really* well 
> at that. So maybe the folks who do man our stands on non-perl events 
> know a thing or two about things we don't know about...?

Let us have Perl 5's version number be the relevant the perforce 
changelist number. How does Perl v150000.0 sound? It will leave FF and 
Chrome in the dust. jkjk

More seriously (but I dont have an opinion on this idea), why not drop 
Perl version numbers and use code names for the releases? The internal 
version number becomes a integer that is ++ed sequentially (start at 
5017010 and then 5017040 and then 5017200 and then 5017200). Car and 
mobile phone industries both dropped unfriendly model numbers for 
marketing friendly names years ago.

Ricardo Signes wrote:
 > Furthermore, were Perl 7 to be released (secretly known to be Perl 
 > what would the outcome be?  It would gain attention, and people would 
 > "Wow, a big new release of Perl?  What's new?  Oh.  Not very much! 
Ho hum."
 > It gets us attention and then squanders it, because it isn't able to 
deliver on
 > "all the amazing cool new stuff."  What's amazing and cool since 5.8?

Valid point. 5.8 introduced unicode, perlio, ithreads, a very different 
pack syntax, etc. Its practically a new language. Since 5.8, nothing 
radical internally except for MRO IMO, (feel to to add your feature 
lists). Is Perl 5 feature complete? I don't think so. But the idea of 
"Perl 5 exists only for backwards compatibility with legacy code because 
Perl 6 is the future so all radical people have to goto Perl 6" 
mentality needs to stop. Seeing Perl 5.8 support questions online in 
2012 and 2013 says something is wrong. You don't see Windows 98/NT 4 
support questions in 2013 (I searched a forum I visit for anecdotal 
evidence, last NT 4 question 2006 (active directory), last win98 
question 2008 (driver request)). Why are there still 5.8 questions?

Peter Rabbitson wrote:
 > 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 
 >>> 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.

Why not rename Perl 5 if Perl 6 is taken? Someone mentioned Camelia as a 
name, why not rename Perl 5 to that?

Dave Rolsky wrote:
 > I'm 100% okay with how long Perl 6 has taken, and this shouldn't be
 > taken as a criticism of that project. I think it's an interesting
 > project, and it's spurred a lot of good Perl 5 development. Maybe ten
 > years from now I'll be programming in Perl 6 on a day to day basis. But
 > Larry's insistence on squatting the Perl 5+X (for X >= 1) names is more
 > and more starting to seem like a rejection of reality, and is less
 > justified the longer Perl 6 takes, and the less involved he is with 
Perl 5.
 > -dave

Agree. IMO Perl 6 is an research project, to create things to be 
incorporated into production quality things. It only ends when its PI 
looses funding, or is bussed. It can't be completed by definition.

Overall, something should be done. If you want nostalgia, hang a Pink 
Camel ( ) on 
the wall. Put it next to the Mac Classic, and the IBM XT, a Burroughs 
terminal, and PDP 11 assembly books in your house.

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