Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2020
If there are any breaking changes that are not made optional by pragmata then we have two classes of Perl citizens some of whom are more equal than others: those who decide how and when breaking changes will occur and the hoi polloi who must either accept these changes with no say or move on to another language. I believe we should be faithful to our creed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_more_than_one_way_to_do_it by continuing to allow each and every user to individually control the features of the language they wish to use just as we do now via *use* statements. By doing so, democratically, we would make Perl more powerful than any other language out there, even those controlled by benevolent dictators for life. St Paul tells us that this is possible and I dare to believe him because if not, we do not deserve to call ourselves programmers in any language, let alone Perl. On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 5:49 PM Sawyer X <xsawyerx@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 8/6/20 9:49 AM, Tomasz Konojacki wrote: > > On Wed, 05 Aug 2020 23:35:59 -0500 > > John Lightsey <john@nixnuts.net> wrote: > > > >> Why would a hard fork of Perl 5 be preferable to Perl 5 and Perl 7 being > >> maintained under the same umbrella by the same people? > >> > >> Sawyer's talk stated that Perl 5 will be maintained without any breaking > >> changes for users that don't want new features or don't feel ready to > >> upgrade. Perl 5 will be more stable than it currently is, not less. > >> > >> What would a fork of Perl 5 aim to accomplish that isn't already part of > >> the plan to maintain Perl 5 while Perl 7 moves forward? > >> > >> I'm not trying to be facetious... I see the Perl 5 long term support > >> aspect of the plan as a significant improvement to the status quo. It > >> should make changes to core Perl less of a risk for anyone tending > >> legacy codebases. > > It's a false dichotomy that all users want either legacy > > maintenance-mode Perl that never changes or total breakage without any > > warning. As I said in my previous post, there's an obvious third way. > > > I think you're creating a straw-man here. > > > No one, including myself or anyone who worked or supported the plan, had > ever said "total breakage without any warning." > > > As long as you rephrase my words or the plan we've raised as something > it is not, it cannot be argued properly. > -- Thanks, Phil <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN> Philip R Brenan <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN>Thread Previous | Thread Next