Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Clear questions and runnable code
get the best and fastest answer
 
PerlMonks  

Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?

by revdiablo (Prior)
on May 23, 2005 at 18:22 UTC ( #459659=perlmeditation: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

For those who haven't heard the news, Perl 6 has recently received a large shot in the arm. Out of nowhere, autrijus jump started a Perl 6 compiler/interpreter called Pugs. A touch more than 100 days later (check out autrijus' journal for a blow-by-blow account), and we already have a considerable amount of Perl 6 to play with. There's still a long way to go (including porting or rewriting the whole thing in Perl 6 itself), but the pace of development is amazing and exciting.

Now my question is, why aren't more people joining in the fun? I can imagine many reasons. Some of them are compelling reasons. Others may be not so good. But I'm trying to get a sense of what some actual reasons are. Think of this as a survey of the Monk population. Please respond early and often!

Note: My choice of the words "using" and "joining in the fun" are intentionally ambiguous. There are a lot of things that this implementation can be useful for, but I'm trying not to influence anybody's responses. Not yet, anyway. :-)

Update: for more information on Pugs, see Limbic~Region's fine post, Get Involved With Pugs.

Update: apologies to those, like mrborisguy, who are already using Pugs. Perhaps they can chime in as to why they are using Perl 6? :-)

Final update: I have posted a follow reply at Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?

Comment on Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by ghenry (Vicar) on May 23, 2005 at 18:28 UTC

    I for one, am still trying to learn perl5 ;-)

    Walking the road to enlightenment... I found a penguin and a camel on the way.....
    Fancy a yourname@perl.me.uk? Just ask!!!
Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by kvale (Monsignor) on May 23, 2005 at 18:37 UTC
    It does sound exciting, but I'm not sure I could contribute much as I don't know much Haskell and what I have seen of pugs, that Haskell is formidable. At the level of the p6 language itself, well based on the p6 code I have seen posted of PM, it looks like a considerably different language to me.

    I am no stick in the mud, but perl5 is a solid, higly optimized language/compiler with a vibrant community. I am still having a alot of fun writing p5 code. I will evenutally switch over to p6, but haven't hit the crossover yet.

    -Mark

      kvale,
      ...well based on the p6 code I have seen posted of PM, it looks like a considerably different language to me.

      Keep your trusty Perl6::Bible in hand for new stuff, but most code can be transformed from p5 to p6 without a great deal of change. Super Search my p6 posts and compare them to the p5 counterparts for proof. Perl6 is much like p5 in giving you several ways of doing things and no one is forcing you to use the new ways.

      Cheers - L~R

      Umm, Perl5 is neither solid or highly optimized. That's why we need Perl6.

      "There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.

        I disagree. Perl5 has had a great deal of attention paid to optimization, particularly in areas like sorting, regexes, and hash functions. That's one reason why it leaves most other scripting languages (Python, PHP, and Ruby, for example) in the dust when compared on the basis of simple performance.
Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by brian_d_foy (Abbot) on May 23, 2005 at 18:37 UTC

    I keep meaning with play with Pugs, but I have a long list of things to do. Pugs at the moment is merely a fun project and it's constantly changing. It's moving a bit too fast for the amount of free time I have right now. :)

    --
    brian d foy <brian@stonehenge.com>
Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by Fletch (Chancellor) on May 23, 2005 at 18:44 UTC

    I'm too busy not having time to play with Rails to not have time to muck with Perl 6.

Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on May 23, 2005 at 18:46 UTC
    Until Juerd's offer today, I couldn't use it because I refuse to develop in Win32 for a "fun project", haven't gotten around to building my Linux box from bubblegum and baling wire, and Pugs doesn't work on Cygwin (for various rather complicated reasons). We'll see what happens when the new dev server is online.

    • In general, if you think something isn't in Perl, try it out, because it usually is. :-)
    • "What is the sound of Perl? Is it not the sound of a wall that people have stopped banging their heads against?"
Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by hardburn (Abbot) on May 23, 2005 at 18:49 UTC

    Mostly because I don't have a compelling problem to apply it on. That's not quite true. I want to port Gopher::Server to using Perl6's object system (mostly because Gopher::Server has a nice design that should be ammenable to learning Perl6 objects). But Pugs doesn't seem to be entirely there with the objects yet.

    Also, the latest releases need a more up-to-date version of GHC then I can get on my system ATM. GHC on Gentoo relies on Haddock, which appears not to be compilable with a hardened GCC (see http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92282).

    In any case, Perl6 has the same problem that I currently have with other languages that are significantly different from most other languages I already know--it's too easy to say "I would like to solve this problem in a new language, but the old language will do fine and I'm having problems getting it to work in the new one".

    The key is in how much langauges differ. After a day or two, I felt I knew C# well enough to tell a perspective employer that I know the language. I already knew Java, and C# is boaringly similar. I don't feel the same about O'Caml, which I've been playing with off-and-on for about a year.

    Perl6 isn't as different from Perl5 as O'Caml, but taking advantage of the language is going to take a while.

    "There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.

Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by Ninthwave (Chaplain) on May 23, 2005 at 18:54 UTC

    I have downloaded and started it. The examples were a bit too much really. And I did not have the time yet to focus on it. Everytime I get time I seem to be checking for updates more than playing. Once the project I am working on dies down I will see if I have some free coding time. 60 hour weeks for a month and a half limits perl fun time.

    Though I suspect I will get more nightmare projects soon. I have to feed a family of 5. So $/hr, fun/hr ratio is not balanced currently.

    "No matter where you go, there you are." BB
Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by johnnywang (Priest) on May 23, 2005 at 19:50 UTC
    I also downloaded PUGS, and tried a few examples, works fine. But until I can use it in a real project, it will remain in the back burner, meaning, occasionally I'll try something, just to keep up to date. I guess, for most of us mere mortals, we're users of perl, hopefully we'll move up the ladder slowly.
Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by perrin (Chancellor) on May 23, 2005 at 21:02 UTC
    I'm a practical person with limited spare time and tons of other programming projects vying for my attention. I won't bother learning much of anything about Perl6 until it becomes a better choice than Perl5 for developing large-scale web sites in.
Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by tilly (Archbishop) on May 23, 2005 at 21:04 UTC
    It is premature to use it for work, and my home machine has died (but is somewhat useable with knoppix). I'm putting off replacing my machine until after I move in a month, and after that we'll see how much spare time I have. (Hasn't been much lately, for personal reasons.)
        Nice. Can you produce a stable URL that always points to the latest version? I want to mention it in a article that will be published one (or two) months from now.

        -- stefp

        The problem is that Pugs moves so fast that I'd always feel seriously out of date.

        I can just wait a couple of months. Particularly since I don't have that much spare time.

Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by mrborisguy (Hermit) on May 23, 2005 at 21:26 UTC

    Why are you accusing me of not using it when I am! Ahh, you're so inconsiderate!

        -Bryan

    Update: Thanks for the notice... I was just kidding around. (But I'm sure you figured that out!)

Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by holli (Monsignor) on May 23, 2005 at 22:21 UTC
    I won't waste a thought on Perl6 until there is an "official" release and a book to read about.


    holli, /regexed monk/
Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by Roy Johnson (Monsignor) on May 23, 2005 at 23:52 UTC
    I'm not aware of any compelling reason to use it. Maybe if there were a post of all the reasons I should want to use it...
    • 5. In a year, prospective employers will require three years' programming experience in it
    • 4. Line noise twice as likely to compile
    • 3. Have to know it if you want to help write the next version of Haskell
    • 2. Cow orkers are beginning to be able to read Perl 5
    • 1. It's almost Ruby!
    Ok, kidding aside, why?

    Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.
      Ok, kidding aside, why?

      Since this has gone unanswered, I'll give it a shot. Here are some of my reasons for playing with Pugs (and note that this is an unordered list on purpose):

      • It's a lot of fun tracking a fast-moving project
        • Especially when you submit bug reports that get fixed less than 24 hours later
      • The new language seems to be very nice, if the snippets of code I've written for Pugs are any indication
      • It's a nice way to learn Perl 6 gradually, "just for fun"
      • I have a feeling that following the development of the language and implementation will help immensely later on
      • Just by finding bugs and checking in test cases, I get my name in the AUTHORS file ;-)
Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by japhy (Canon) on May 23, 2005 at 23:59 UTC
    Well, I would be using it already if jcwren had it on perlmonk.org, but GHC eats memory like it's candy. So until I have my own place to put it (which might mean installing it on my WinXP laptop) I'll have to pretend.

    <plug type="shameless">But that doesn't stop me from writing Perl6::Rule::Parser, a subclass/extension of Regexp::Parser!</plug>


    Jeff japhy Pinyan, P.L., P.M., P.O.D, X.S.: Perl, regex, and perl hacker
    How can we ever be the sold short or the cheated, we who for every service have long ago been overpaid? ~~ Meister Eckhart

      Juerd has offered a Pugs/Perl 6 playground box that anyone can get an account for. Send him a note and let playtime begin!

Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by tlm (Prior) on May 24, 2005 at 01:22 UTC

    I want to learn Haskell first (though I'm having a hard time finding an on-ramp). (I realize I don't need to know Haskell to use Pugs.)

    the lowliest monk

      Really.

      I, too, became interested in Haskell, having had to do a little background reading and then becoming intrigued. I have a little Scheme, which helped, but this tutorial is the one that got me to the point that I was making stuff work.


      MB

        Thanks. I have read the gentle intro but I had not seen the tutorial you posted; it looks promising. Thank you.

        When I wrote that I'm having a hard time finding "an on ramp" what I meant was "a task or project that I could do in Haskell that I actually wanted to do", as opposed to academic exercises such as implementing Fibonacci iterators and sieves of Erathostenes.

        One of the many ways in which Perl has intensified my laziness is that it is so useful for everyday programming that no other programming language seems to come close. The reason I picked up Perl almost instantly is that I could use it for practically everything from the get-go.

        The Haskell community seems to have a very academic bent, interested in rather abstruse areas of computer science (which is reflected in the material one can easily find for learning Haskell); these are very interesting topics, but they are quite removed from my everyday programming.

        the lowliest monk

Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by TedPride (Priest) on May 24, 2005 at 01:29 UTC
    I haven't found a job yet that I couldn't do with Perl 5.x. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by etcshadow (Priest) on May 24, 2005 at 01:30 UTC
    For roughly the same reasons that I'm not using perl 5.8.x or 5.6.x. Also, while we're at it, the same reason that I'm still using Apache 1.x and mod_perl 1.x. It's because I've got about a million lines (give or take) of code running on 5.005_03 (and apache 1.x/mod_perl 1.x).

    Not that we don't upgrade... we do. Admittedly, we're kind of behind with perl. We'd begun a project to upgrade to 5.8 late last year, but it unfortunately fell apart due to personel issues. It's coming back, but not the single highest priority at the momebt. But I digress.

    The point is, I think that a lot of folks are not yet using perl 6 because they have jobs, and those jobs are using lower versions of perl. (Espescially considerring that there are most likely about zero jobs available using perl 6.)

    ------------ :Wq Not an editor command: Wq
Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by samtregar (Abbot) on May 24, 2005 at 02:27 UTC
    When it's compatible with CPAN I'll be happy to give it a look. CPAN is my programming language of choice, the rest is just syntax.

    -sam

        Well that's amazing. I guess I have to check out Pugs now.

        -sam

Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by diotalevi (Canon) on May 24, 2005 at 03:28 UTC

    GHC and therefore Pugs and therefore Perl6 doesn't run on my machine yet. GHC runs in less places than perl5 which means perl6 runs in less places as well. :-(

    Added: I'm using NetBSD 2.0.2 (the latest) on an SMP Sparc. "sparc-netbsd-thread-multi"

      Ah, yes, but can other compilers compile to run on bare metal?!

      $h=$ENV{HOME};my@q=split/\n\n/,`cat $h/.quotes`;$s="$h/." ."signature";$t=`cat $s`;print$t,"\n",$q[rand($#q)],"\n";
      diotalevi,
      Would you mind giving your machine specs so that people who are more closely monitoring GHC and Pugs portability can alert you as to when it is working?

      Cheers - L~R

Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by drbean (Novice) on May 24, 2005 at 04:18 UTC
    The reason I'm not is the reason why perl had such a big effect on me, compared to C, which I made some efforts on about the same time as I was starting with perl. I was able to do something with perl.

    I feel a meditation coming on. Something about top-down and bottom-up and how they meet in a muddle in the middle.

    Anyway the problem space mutated learning perl. I am sure the same will bappen with perl6. In fact, I am building each of the releases of pugs and lurking on #perl6.

    Probably I will start with something using Rules. I was trying Perl6:Rules with a parser, but it was segfaulting perl.

    This is all bottom-up stuff. Essentially, my answer is pugs hasn't revealed a top-down problem like the White Rabbit that is exciting to chase.

    The move from perl5 to perl6 isn't as exciting as that from sed to perl.
Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by castaway (Parson) on May 24, 2005 at 05:41 UTC
    Because I usually need a good reason to learn a new language, something to use it for, something it does better than whichever language(s) I'm currently using. Despite all the "there aren't that many changes, honest" claims, Perl6 seems to have enough subtle changes that one needs to treat it like a new language. I've been watching (and sometimes commenting) the #perl6 channel for quite a while, that's how I come to this conclusion. If I, at least, try to treat it like "just another new perl version" I'm sure I'll get into great tangles trying to remember which syntax is p5 and which is p6.

    I'm aware that p5 had quite a few changes over p4, but weren't those mostly additions (eg modules), rather than actual changes of significant syntax?

    C.

      Well, for Perl 5, I think the ->, @{}, [...] and {...} are very significant syntax changes.

      There's also the my $var declaration, $Package::name syntax, autoquoting name => 'value' and tie().

      I think the fact that we forgot the drastic impact those changes brought, is a good indication of what Perl 6 will become in the Hey, what was the big deal? phase.

Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by cog (Parson) on May 24, 2005 at 09:35 UTC
    How about:

    Because I get paid to use Perl5, because I don't have enough time to play around with Perl6 and because it isn't finished yet anyway and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to use it on production systems? :-)

    Now don't get me wrong, I think it's a wonderful thing what is happening around Perl6 and I try to follow what is happening, but not all of us have the time to do real work with it.

    *wanders off to a meeting saying "darn, I haven't even started on the slides for YAPC::NA..."*

Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by jplindstrom (Monsignor) on May 24, 2005 at 11:31 UTC
    Perl6 obviously isn't mature enough for work related projects yet so that's out.

    The down-to-earth thing I'm mostly interested in using is the new OO model/syntax, but even though I follow Autrijus' journal it's pretty vague to me how complete the implementation is in that area. When that works, I'm very likely to start playing around with Perl6.

    A solid threading system is also something I look forward to very much.

    /J

Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by arc_of_descent (Hermit) on May 24, 2005 at 13:13 UTC

    I really would like to start using Perl 6, but I would have to seriously make or break my schedule. I happen to be quite a pragmatic person (or so I would like others to belive!), not only in work, but also in life, and I just can't see myself delivering Perl 6 code to my clients in the near future.

    But all said and done, I am quite willing to jump into Perl 6 and I'm going to do just that!

    Cheers!

Why I haven't got around to Pugs yet...
by jonadab (Parson) on May 24, 2005 at 13:14 UTC

    Pugs is definitely on my list of things to check out, and has been on that list for a fortnight or so now. And it's high on the list, one of the top two or three things. I've been promising myself since circa A5 that I would be a Perl6 early adoptor, so I definitely intend to start using it, for some stuff at least, before things are properly complete.

    But my TODO list has a built-in latency, see...
Too busy learning Haskell
by jordanh (Chaplain) on May 24, 2005 at 15:22 UTC

    I'm too busy learning Haskell.

    Seriously. The Pugs project has convinced me that Haskell is an incredibly powerful language and I want to know why and use that power myself.

Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by adrianh (Chancellor) on May 24, 2005 at 15:32 UTC
    Now my question is, why aren't more people joining in the fun? I can imagine many reasons. Some of them are compelling reasons. Others may be not so good. But I'm trying to get a sense of what some actual reasons are. Think of this as a survey of the Monk population. Please respond early and often!

    In order of importance:

    • Lack of time :-)

    • Lack of good pedagogical material. If I had more time it wouldn't be as important - but at the moment I need somebody to explain in short words for the feeble minded some of the bits of Perl 6 that I don't immediately grok.
    • Lack of full support for the Perl 6 regexp/grammar and OO systems. These are the bits of Perl 6 that interest me most from the language perspective. If they were all up and running now I'd probably find the time to go poke and prod.
      adrianh,
      • Time
      • I also have no time and yet I find myself porting small pieces of p5 code to p6 just to see how to do it. Since I am not yet taking advantage of the new features, it really is quite straight forward and doesn't take a significant amount of time.
      • Reference Material
      • Have you seen Perl6::Bible? It should help a bit as a reference guide when things are unclear. I know the hassle of joining p6.l to try and get a single question answered so if it isn't in the "book" yet, you might consider joining #perl6 on IRC. Just have a window open lurking and if you have a question, ask and it will be answered or someone will go find the answer for you.
      • P6 Rules/OO
      • Well, as much of PGE (rules) that exists to date from pmichaud is available to Pugs and p5 regexen via PCRE are also available. While full OO support isn't in yet, a great deal is. And when you find something missing that you want - ask for it (really). Having a real need for something is usually motivation enough for the people with time to implement it.

      See Get Involved With Pugs for more information. Oh, by the way - Pugs can use CPAN modules now!!


      Cheers - L~R

        First an apology. I --'d your node when I meant to ++. The tired old brain didn't quite manage to stop the fingers from hitting the return key when the eyes eventually told it about my stupidity. If one of the gods want's to fix it feel free :-)

        I also have no time and yet I find myself porting small pieces of p5 code to p6 just to see how to do it.

        Then you obviously have more time than I do. Where do you purchase it and can I get a bulk discount :-)

        Have you seen Perl6::Bible?

        Yup. I also read all the Apocalypses, Synopses and Exegeses when they first came out. I even read through a few of the revisions. However "Reference Material" wasn't on my wish list - I want "good pedagogical material". A12 may cover the Perl 6 OO system - but it can hardly be called a tutorial.

        Not that this is the fault of Larry et al - they were not written to be tutorials. In any case with the hugely impressive development speed of PUGS, and the number of changes being made to exactly what this particular bit of Perl 6 really means, tutorials would be premature.

        However, with my current lack of free time, I can't spend the time to think hard about the A/E/S docs, post questions on perl6-language, IRC, etc. to get my head straight.

        At the moment, if I was going to learn Perl 6 with the time available to me, I'd need the Perl 6 version of Perl 5's Camel book, or Ruby's Pickaxe book. Or at least the moral equivalent of perlboot and friends. Some sugar to make the medicine go down.

        At the absolute least I'd love to see item 3 of autrijus's wishlist and have "A more stable core language definition, with both online and offline documentation".

        Well, as much of PGE (rules) that from pmichaud is available to http://pugscode.org and p5 regexen via PCRE are also available.

        Well gosh darn it - if you aren't right :-) Managed to miss that somehow. Named rules too. Excellent. Consider me slightly more tempted to play.

        While full OO support isn't in yet, a great deal is. And when you find something missing that you want - ask for it (really). Having a real need for something is usually motivation enough for the people with time to implement it.

        Unfortunately I don't yet have the necessary knowledge to ask in a sane manner. Without more time and/or better documentation I'm not going to be able to acquire it in the near future. So I'll just have to wait patiently.

        See Get Involved With Pugs for more information.

        Got any spare tuits :-)

        Oh, by the way - Pugs can use CPAN modules now!!

        Jolly good.


        None of this is, of course, a complaint. Quite the opposite. I am positively stunned at the progress of PUGS/Perl 6. I'd never have thought things could have progressed so quickly. It's just not a party that my personal circumstances will allow me to join at the moment.

Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by revdiablo (Prior) on May 24, 2005 at 17:59 UTC

    Since there are far too many posts here to reply to individually, I am going to post a summary reply. It's heartening to see the number of thoughtful replies. Based on previous Perl 6 posts here at the Monastery, I expected very little response. Even though these responses are explaining why people aren't using Perl 6, at least it shows some level of interest.

    The content of the replies is encouraging, too. Most of them are positive, "wait and see" kind of thoughts. This is a perfectly understandable direction to take. I am glad to see there's not a whole lot of general anti-Perl-6 sentiment out there. At least, not in this thread, anyway. :-)

    I wonder what the replies would have been like if, instead of asking about "using" Perl 6, I had asked about "looking at" or "investigating". That probably would have been closer to what I intended to ask. I suppose it was a poor word choice on my part, but the responses are interesting and enlightening nonetheless.

    Many thanks to all who replied! Oh, and by the way, don't let this message stop you from replying if you haven't yet. I will keep reading any further posts with interest.

Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by Anonymous Monk on May 24, 2005 at 18:22 UTC
    Well, I'm in no rush to learn Perl 6. My reasons (or prejudices) in rough order, are:

    1) Documentation Is the Perl6 specification even done yet? When I last read the apocolyses(sp?), they all raised more questions than they answered: Larry was unclear about what was going to change in the next apocoplyse, and what wasn't. Do we have a full language specification, and if so, where is it documented? Until that work is done, I don't really want to muck about with some language that's still somebody's toy. I just want the final product.

    2) Perl6 itself I just didn't like most of what I read about it. It seems too big, too complicated, and gives people way too much rope to hang the maintenance coder with. I just know some idiot is going to do something stupid, like overload some subtly different unicode glyphs, instead of just naming functions normally. There were a few places where the language was made simpler or saner: but then more features were thrown into what was already a big kitchen-sink language; and I'm worried it will all collapse under the weight to the maintenance burden. It's hard enough to maintain perl5 code; with more complicated features, the messes are going to get more and more horrible to clean up.

    3) Haskell. Pugs is implemented in haskell. I struggled with poor documention from haskell.org five years ago, and completely failed to learn haskell because I didn't know what any of the error messages meant. For a language that was supposed to be "more advanced", it was too much work to do simple tasks: I remember not being able to use the syntax I expected on several occasions, and not knowing if it was a bug in the interpreter, a mistake in my code, or some combination of the two. The language didn't have a newsgroup, the wiki hadn't seen any traffic for over a year, and I finally assumed the language was a dead-end, and gave up. Now, the prospect of getting entangled with haskell again makes my skin crawl. It's a prejudice, I know, but one based on past frustrations.

    4) Copyright. My employer hires me to do programming work. Most of the programming work that I do belongs to them. Since I don't have fixed working hours (I'm a salaried employee), if I try to program "for myself", confusion could arise over which copyrights belong to me, and which to my employer. It's just a simpler legal position for all parties if I don't program at all outside of work.

    So that's it. My reasons, or prejudices, or what have you. Take from them what you will.
    --
    Ytrew Q. Uiop

Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by mrborisguy (Hermit) on May 25, 2005 at 03:41 UTC

    I heard autrijus just made it so pugs can include p5 modules! Now there's absolutely NO reason for me not to use it!

        -Bryan

Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by Anonymous Monk on Jun 03, 2005 at 19:45 UTC
    I honestly don't like many of the changes that have been made in Perl 6. Perl 5 certainly could use improvement, but many of the changes to the syntax for Perl 6 just seem ridiculously gratuitous. I know it's silly, but Perl 6 just doesn't look and feel like Perl 5. I've been programming in Perl professionally for 10+ years. Perl 6 is so different from Perl 5 that I strongly feel that it should be given a new name entirely. So I'm sticking with Perl 5 until it's either no longer viable or until there's a compelling reason to use Perl 6.
Re: Why aren't you using Perl 6 yet?
by Scarborough (Hermit) on Jun 06, 2005 at 12:16 UTC
    As someone who is working every day with PERL holding down a job feeding the family etc. Its very hard to keep up with the developments in PERL6. I feel I'd love to be involed and rise to the challenge but I don't really know how to begin.
      Thank you for this reply. I started replying directly to you, but I decided to make it a new top-level post. See How can I start with Perl 6? for details.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: perlmeditation [id://459659]
Approved by kvale
Front-paged by ghenry
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others pondering the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-12-25 15:23 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Is guessing a good strategy for surviving in the IT business?





    Results (160 votes), past polls