develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from August 2020

Re: Q: what the hell is going on? // A: ...

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Philip R Brenan
August 6, 2020 17:15
Re: Q: what the hell is going on? // A: ...
Message ID:
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:

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 <> wrote:

> On 8/6/20 9:49 AM, Tomasz Konojacki wrote:
> > On Wed, 05 Aug 2020 23:35:59 -0500
> > John Lightsey <> 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.


Phil <>

Philip R Brenan <>

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