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

Re: Perl 7 or Perl 2013?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Nicholas Clark
Date:
February 7, 2013 10:59
Subject:
Re: Perl 7 or Perl 2013?
Message ID:
20130207105921.GZ5653@plum.flirble.org
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:47:01AM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 23:02:12 +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
> <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Ricardo Signes
> > <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> wrote:
> > > We can't call it "Perl {$x>5}" without contradicting Larry.
> > 
> > How about "perl 2013.1, the latest implementation of Perl 5 the
> > language".
> 
> That is what OpenSUSE does: 12.2 is the second release of 2012

But, of course, that's OpenSUSE's version numbering, not the kernel's.
Which is probably the point - if you ask anyone non-technical what version
of Linux they are running the most common answer you'll probably get is "5"
or "6". Not 2.anything or 3.anything. But the version number of their
distribution.

Which makes me wonder...

The version number isn't the only perceived marketing frustration.
People also express a lot of frustration that the modules they consider
that should be in a distribution aren't in the distribution.

Wouldn't one solution to this whole name/number/stuff conundrum be to take
(say) Chocolate Perl, or some other "batteries included" aggregate
distribution and promote *that*? Its version number doesn't have to be tied
either to 5 or to 18.

Perl doesn't ship with a decent object system? Nonsense, Chocolate Perl does.
etc

Nicholas Clark

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About