Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
"be consistent"
 
PerlMonks  

Think Perl 6 (new book)

by pvaldes (Chaplain)
on May 18, 2017 at 18:18 UTC ( #1190550=perlquestion: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??
pvaldes has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

It seems that this O' Reilly book is in pre-printing phase and estimate release of the paper version is "May 2017". (The Ebook version was released in January) Have you taken a look to the book yet? Is worth it? Any critic or opinion welcomed.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Think Perl 6 (new book)
by stevieb (Monsignor) on May 18, 2017 at 18:37 UTC

    I'm definitely in. I've toyed with perl6 a reasonable amount off and on, and I have nothing but respect for those who are currently in the book-writing process for the language. I will support each of them by purchasing their books as to help them financially for volunteering so much time to the development and teaching of the language.

    The authors of the books about to be published (there are four at my last count) have done a great service to the perl5 community, as well as the perl6 community. Each has their own writing style (as does everyone actually), so it'll be interesting to grab them all and get a feel for each author's style.

    I have no opinion or recommendation as of yet of course (as I don't have any of the books), but I'll definitely write up a blog post as I work through each one.

      Thank you very much, stevieb, for your comment.

      I can only confirm that writing this book was a lot of hard work almost every evening and every weekend during more than one year.

      I just don't see any reason to support the people who want to kill Perl5.

        You seem to think that a new language will kill off an old one. My opinion is that you're wrong. It's Java and Python that have lowered Perl in use, not perl6.

        It is the colleges and universities that are adopting the newest and greatest fad doing the work, not the perl6 devs. Believing anything else is asinine (imho).

        Many (if not most, I do not have statistical information) of the perl6 devs are still active in the perl5 community; perhaps some less than they used to be, but I digress. I'm a perl5 fanatic, and that is proven over and over. I bend over backwards to provide interfaces to even some of the most remote nonsense one can imagine. I also am a very seasoned Python programmer, and given berrybrew, I have some knowledge in C# as well (note that berrybrew is a project I took on *for* the perl5 community. Also note that I hate Windows, but sometimes you have to sacrifice for the greater good). I can also code my way out of a paper bag with C (with guidance in some situations), C++ and even two custom languages that were developed at my current place of employ.

        Things fall out of favour naturally. Perl 4 is all but gone, and Perl 5 is a lucrative place for a job (if you can be so lucky to find one). For new devs, they won't find perl5 jobs any longer. It's the extremely experienced folks who will take over legacy systems, and possibly make them better (or even convert them to a new language (definitely not perl6 at this time) per a company's policy).

        Again, saying a handful of perl6 developers who may or may not be writing about what they've learned is hurting perl5 is not only irresponsible and unfounded, it's an uneducated, non-factual and asinine thing to say.

        Hanging on to something going out is a choice. I've made that choice personally by dedicating a whole crap-ton of my time to perl5. Not everyone thinks this way. I also hang on to my older vehicles because they don't have the new technology that I don't want in them. That doesn't mean that my neighbour who buys a 2017 vehicle doesn't still appreciate the '95 carburetor-fed 4x4 we work on together.

Re: Think Perl 6 (new book)
by Laurent_R (Abbot) on May 19, 2017 at 20:01 UTC
    Hi,

    As the author of this book, I can confirm that the book was sent to the printer two weeks ago; so my guess is that the printing phase should be completed by now, even though I did not get yet confirmation of that from O'Reilly.

    The e-version now available on O'Reilly's site is the "final" version.

    BTW, I started a thread on this book 3.5 months ago: http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=1180698.

    And I believe that my record on this site (and on a number of others) shows that I am also very active in the Perl 5 community.

    Many thanks to stevieb and other monks who appreciate and support this kind of hard work (many hours almost every evening and every week-end for more than a year).

    (And, of course, I am not in a position to give an opinion on this book.)

Re: Think Perl 6 (new book)
by pvaldes (Chaplain) on May 19, 2017 at 14:41 UTC

    Well, I just have a few extra bucks to burn; and was thinking that is time to improve my Perl bibliography with some enlightening lectures. If Perl6 can do the same in less characters and with less pitfalls (I tend to happily fall in each hole, plunk) it has all my attention.

    I'll appreciate your experience about some must-have Perl books that changed your point of view of the language. My main focus is applications for scientific word. I'm not so much interested in creating webpages or so. Just want to mega-boost my skills, faster, and the more simpler and straight way, the better.

Re: Think Perl 6 (new book)
by Anonymous Monk on May 18, 2017 at 18:21 UTC
    It is still not worth learning Perl 6 to me. Any news on Perl 7?
Re: Think Perl 6 (new book)
by 1nickt (Parson) on May 18, 2017 at 21:15 UTC

    "Perl6" is not Perl. It's not relevant here. It just has a similar name, unfortunately. You might as well ask for opinions on the latest book about Blorgle.


    The way forward always starts with a minimal test.

      I don't want to impede ongoing discussion on this topic, as it seems to be lively and for the most part respectful. But I would like to clarify one thing.

      PerlMonks is a community. In this community, there is a general consensus that Perl 6 topics are acceptable. Obviously not everyone is going to agree with this, but at least as of today this is within the community's norms.

      Perl 6 does not (yet) have its own community site like PerlMonks. And given that the Perl 6 community is made up almost entirely of members of the "true Perl" community, I'm happy to host their discussions here, if they like -- Raiph and his posts being an obvious example.

      At the same time, I would encourage all who post on the Perl 6 topic to include the "[P6]" prefix on their title lines, as a service to all, in just the same way that "off topic" posts get the "[OT]" tag.

      Thanks.

      I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.

        I would encourage all who post on the Perl 6 topic to include the "P6" prefix on their title lines ...

        What to do, then, when a thread about Perl is hijacked and begins to discuss "Perl6" ?


        The way forward always starts with a minimal test.

      That's akin to saying that perl4 is not Perl.

      To that end, perl1, perl2 or perl3 either.

      I personally appreciate what you have to say, and you as a person, but your digging at perl6 is a bit ~disturbing~.

      Why?

      Is it a fear of Perlmonks being taken over? A fear of a job loss situation? I'm seriously curious, legitimately.

        Not akin at all. Your Perl 4 program *is* Perl and will run under Perl 5. "Perl6" is a different language, as its own promotional blurb states .... so why does it continue to use the same name?


        The way forward always starts with a minimal test.
      ""Perl6" is not Perl..."

      It looks like this becomes your Idée fixe.

      Regards, Karl

      «The Crux of the Biscuit is the Apostrophe»

      Furthermore I consider that Donald Trump must be impeached as soon as possible

        Look, you're a smart guy. This isn't complicated.

        For ~ 20 years or more the word "Perl" referred to a specific computer language. So by definition another language was not Perl.

        Then suddenly, in an attempt to mitigate the destruction done by their colossal egos and stubbornness, we find that, having finally acknowledged that P6 is *not* a successor, the P6 group simply decreed a change in the meaning of the word "Perl" to: "a family of languages."

        (This is because, as the various official Perl publications repeatedly state, today, "Perl6" is *not* the same language as Perl 5. It's a so-called "sister language", whatever that means. So in order to continue to use the name Perl they had to redefine its meaning.)

        I reject this Newspeak, as I reject the intent behind it, which is to enable a new language, in pre-production development, to freeload on the reputation of Perl, rather than stand or fall on its own.

        Why would I change my opinion about that?


        The way forward always starts with a minimal test.
      What is relevant here?

      Who decides what is relevant here?

        Who decides what is relevant here?

        Everybody. From the approver, to possible considerers, to voters. That's part of the beauty of this site.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: perlquestion [id://1190550]
Front-paged by Corion
help
Chatterbox?
and all is quiet...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chanting in the Monastery: (11)
As of 2017-05-25 17:39 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?