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

Re: Perl 7 or Perl 2013?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Nicholas Clark
February 8, 2013 15:53
Re: Perl 7 or Perl 2013?
Message ID:
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 03:14:08PM +0000, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 03:19:18PM -0800, Joseph Brenner wrote:
> > Dave Mitchell <> wrote:
> > 
> > "The issue here is purely about marketing."
> > 
> > Correct.  The suggestion is that there's a simple, nearly-free change
> > that could be made that would improve perl's standing in the world.
> > But if it doesn't involve lots of code, we can't manage the decision.
> No, my objection is that it's a change for essentially zero gain.
> Perl's prospects aren't going to magically transformed by introducing a
> new versioning scheme.

This is also my view. *Just* changing the version scheme isn't going to
convince anyone of anything for very long. It will actually look worse
when it becomes apparent that it's nothing substantive.

A visible version lurch also needs to offer something new or different.

Hence why I suggested taking something like Chocolate Perl (or, I guess
Task::Kensho), making a "batteries included" distribution, distinct from
the core, and promoting *that*.

Note, that distinction is needed, because

1) Such a "batteries included" distribution is likely to only usefully build
   on a few common platforms. (I'd guess Win32, OS X and common Linux
2) Downstream Linux and *BSD distributions wouldn't use it as their "perl"
   package. They are already concerned about the size of the perl install,
   and how they fit it onto installation media.

It's a fast way to get to something reasonably substantive. It also side-steps
the issue that many people/firms are sticking on the vendor supplied
/usr/bin/perl, because it explicitly is something they have to install.

Nicholas Clark

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