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 13:15
Subject:
Re: Perl 7 or Perl 2013?
Message ID:
20130207131504.GA5653@plum.flirble.org
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:05:02PM +0000, Dave Mitchell wrote:

> And from a technical viewpoint, perl's versioning system is already
> asymptotically complex, with $], version objects, "use :5.X", "use feature
> :5.X", etc. If we change the perl versioning, we have two options: either
> change $] etc to the new scheme (which will just make everything
> unfixably complex), or we keep it as is, and have the 'technical version'
> (e.g. $]') diverge from the marketing version ("perlhype7, release 20,
> platinum edition"). Which will just confuse people.
> 
> I remember back in the Nineties when Sun moved from SunOS 4.x to SunOS 5.x,
> then Marketing decided to rename it Solaris 2.X (and SunOS 4.x was
> retrospectively renamed Solaris 1.x). But uname still identified the
> system as SunOS 5.x. It just pissed the heck out of any system admins at
> the time.

The internal version numbers remain on the old sequence:

$ uname -a
SunOS nereid 5.11 11.1 i86pc i386 i86pc Solaris

Same for Java:

$ java -version
java version "1.7.0_09-icedtea"
OpenJDK Runtime Environment (rhel-2.3.4.el5_9.1-x86_64)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 23.2-b09, mixed mode)

(that's obviously on a different machine. Just to avoid leaking too much info)


My suggestion was to actually take a distribution (such as Chocolate Perl)
and market *that*. That decouples the version number of the core interpreter
from the version number of the product. And starts to solve the perceived
issues of the wrong batteries being missing.

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