Comments on: Perl 6 is Perl 5++

By: Ville Koskinen

Ville Koskinen — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:49:45 +0000

But... 5++ is not valid Perl syntax, since 5 is a literal, not a variable. So Perl 5++ is a syntax error, even if you mean "Perl 5"++!

By: JAP(5|6)H

JAP(5|6)H — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:59:53 +0000

[...] you, dear reader, already know what this post is about. But on the off-chance that you don’t, make sure you read these posts from [...]

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:04:19 +0000

Perl 5 is to Perl 6 as VB6 is to VB.NET

Yeah there are some similarities...but that is about it.

By: John

John — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:09:38 +0000

My plan is to just try Perl 6 on for size and see. I've left Perl 5 before and have come back, and may do so again. Or not. Either way, there's too many very smart people doing an awful lot of hard work on Perl 6 for me not try try it out for at least a project or two. I wouldn't say "Perl 6 is to Perl 5 as C++ is to C", because C++ is in most ways a superset of C.

By: mw487

mw487 — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:05:09 +0000

So, let's call it perl++ ! perl++ 1.0.0

Personally, I looked at Python, and have no time to program yet another way, that thinks it is the one right way, but I am reading some of the documentation!

I am far more looking forward to perl5.12, perl5.14, even perl5.98, than perl 6 or perl++ 1.0.0 (due by Christmas)

By: Tim Heaney

Tim Heaney — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:02:14 +0000

But many of us find C++ to be just awful. I shouldn't think the Perl 6 folks would be happy with this analogy.

By: dagolden

dagolden — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:02:09 +0000

I meant it in the sense that programmers can move back and forth -- that the existence of one doesn't mean you stop writing the other. (You make a good point about the compiler.)

By: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:11:53 +0000

@Ed Avis: I daresay that if you think C doesn't have just as many historical warts as Perl you haven't read the ANSI C standard :)

Not that Perl couldn't use a facelift...

By: Ed Avis

Ed Avis — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:46:14 +0000

The trouble is that perl5 is crying out for a 'successor' far more than C is or was. C has aged well, but perl5 carries dozens of historical warts and syntax burps that make it unattractive as a new language compared to competitors like Python or Ruby, and even manage to trip up experienced programmers. (Look at Perl::Critic or the Perl Best Practices book for evidence.)

For me, the hope of an eventual migration to perl 6 is a good reason to stick with perl and the perl community rather than migrating to something else.

By: mirod

mirod — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:36:32 +0000

Past the obvious joke, I agree with you 100%.

I don't think it could have been predicted in 2001, when Perl6 started, and after all it is Larry's right to name the language as he wants.

I do believe though that naming the language Perl6 has been disastrous PR-wise. It has stuck the current Perl to version 5 for ever, and has given it he appearance of a language on it's way out, that will "soon" be replaced by the shiny new version 6.

For Perl 6, taking so many years to write a new version of an existing language does not look good either. I mean how many versions of PHP have been released in the past 8 years? The fact that the Perl6 stack is a complete rewrite from scratch, with very ambitious goals, does not appear in the Perl6 moniker, and makes it look like Perl is such a mess that it is impossible to make it evolve.

In short, the whole thing makes it really easy for people from the outside to bash Perl, both 5 and 6, and could have been avoided.
It is "just" perception, but with so many dynamic languages available these days, perception definitely impacts reality. I really think that the damage on Perl image has translated into less people learning Perl, less projects using it, and ultimately less Perl jobs.

Oh well... we'll still do our jobs using whatever version of Perl seems appropriate.