Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks Russ
Just another Perl shrine
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Why Change?

by dragonchild (Archbishop)
on Apr 07, 2008 at 00:14 UTC ( #678697=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Why Change?

Perl6 is as different from Perl5 as C is different from Java. Syntax is similar, but they serve different purposes. The key is to pick the right tool for the job. In many cases, that choice will be Perl5 over Perl6. There's no reason to sell anyone on Perl6 anymore than selling someone on Perl5.

As for "wrong path", it might be a key indicator that almost every person with a significant CPAN presence is heavily in favor of Perl6 and the way it's being developed. This also includes every single person who's ever done any work with the Perl5 source (save one, that I'm aware of).

Converts ... only languages with inferiority complexes attempt to make "converts". We are the duct tape of the Internet and no-one can take that from us. I don't care about anything else.


My criteria for good software:
  1. Does it work?
  2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?


Comment on Re: Why Change?
Re^2: Why Change?
by Corion (Pope) on Apr 07, 2008 at 06:14 UTC
    As for "wrong path", it might be a key indicator that almost every person with a significant CPAN presence is heavily in favor of Perl6 and the way it's being developed. This also includes every single person who's ever done any work with the Perl5 source (save one, that I'm aware of).

    For the record, I'm not "heavily in favor of Perl6", at least not in the sense that I favor anything Perl6 over Perl5. Thus, I don't care about the way it's being developed, as long as it doesn't interfere with anything I want. I don't have a "significant" CPAN presence maybe.

      From what I've seen and heard, you're no more in favor of Perl6 than you were in favor of Perl 5.10. Or, rather, you're no less in favor of 6 of 5.10. Stuff you want is coming in and stuff you don't want is going out. There's some stuff you can't wait to get your hands on and you already see stuff you're going to sigh about. Overall, you feel pretty comfortable about the whole thing and will gladly kick the tires when it's ready, but aren't going to promise anything with regards to using it right away.

      Sounds about right?


      My criteria for good software:
      1. Does it work?
      2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?

        Actually, I feel less in favour of Perl6 than Perl5.10 (or now Perl5.12), because Perl5 has a proven track record and delivers.

        I pretty much don't care for Perl6 and the well-trodden blind alleys it and it's conjoined twin Parrot meander along. I don't feel comfortable about how TPF and Perl6 spend the money on themselves, but then again, I don't get the feeling that Perl5 attracts proposals for money either, so the Perl6-spending doesn't detract from potential Perl5-spending. I don't care enough to join the political fray just to right some perceived wrongs though.

Re^2: Why Change?
by Arunbear (Parson) on Apr 07, 2008 at 22:38 UTC
    Perl6 is as different from Perl5 as C is different from Java. Syntax is similar, but they serve different purposes. The key is to pick the right tool for the job. In many cases, that choice will be Perl5 over Perl6.
    Can you elaborate on that please? What differences of purpose do you see between Perl 5 and 6? (Perl6 macros are a major advance beyond what Perl5 can do, but what else does it have to make you class it as a totally different animal?)
      Perl6 has a gazillion things that differentiate it from Perl5.
      • Parrot. Oh. My. God. The ability to mix Python and Ruby libraries in with Perl libraries is huge.
      • Grammars. The fact that Perl6 will be written in Perl6. I can write my own -real- syntax as a CP6AN library.
      • More importantly, I can -remove- syntax. Like, literally remove the syntax. This makes hardened Perl a real possibility. That means greater penetration into certain areas Perl just wasn't useful for.
      • Proper autoboxing. This is something Ruby has over us. No more.
      • A completely portable ASM I can address. That's nice.
      • Properly first-class functions that serialize nicely. This and proper autoboxing makes the P6 version of DBM::Deep a lot easier to write.
      • Oh, yeah. There's Lispy macros.

      Now, why might I use Perl5 over all that sugary goodness? Well, in the first 5-6 years, very little of the CP6AN code will be truly battle-tested. I might be wanting to reuse Perl5 libraries and don't want to trust the Ponie emulation. The same reason why 5.6 interpreters are still in heavy use and why I haven't bothered to even download 5.10 - change is expensive.

      But, unless there's something horribly wrong, I will be choosing P6 over P5 for all new projects. Once 6.0.2 is released, of course.


      My criteria for good software:
      1. Does it work?
      2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?
        Grammars. The fact that Perl6 will be written in Perl6. I can write my own -real- syntax as a CP6AN library.

        Which brings us to the #1 reason to not change... CP6AN is a horrible acronym!

Re^2: Why Change?
by tilly (Archbishop) on Apr 08, 2008 at 07:31 UTC
    As for "wrong path", it might be a key indicator that almost every person with a significant CPAN presence is heavily in favor of Perl6 and the way it's being developed. This also includes every single person who's ever done any work with the Perl5 source (save one, that I'm aware of).
    That's a very strong claim. Also wrong. For a very prominent and vocal exception see Abigail. For another person with qualms, see Adam Kennedy. If you follow that link you will see comments from brian d. foy indicating that he has qualms as well. None of those are exceptions that you really want to ignore. Nor, based on a number of conversations that I have, would I say that they are particularly uncommon.

    Now you're free to disagree with these people. Many do. But it is wrong to claim that they do not exist.

    Incidentally in an unrelated note, should I resign myself to never getting the apology I requested some time ago?

      That's a very strong claim. Also wrong.

      I agree 100%. Thank you for making the point.

      should I resign myself to never getting the apology I requested some time ago?

      I sympathize, but take it offline.

      A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight
      Abigail was the person I was thinking of. "qualms" doesn't preclude "heavily in favor". I know brian's got reservations, as do I, but I haven't heard anything from brian regarding not supporting Perl6. I also remember talking with Adam about his qualms, but I thought most of them had been addressed. Granted, this was YAPC::NA::2006, so I could be out of date.

      The point still remains, even if I may overstated it a bit. The Perl5 devs and CPAN authors, as a group, are heavily in favor of how Perl6 is progressing, both in terms of deliverables and and in terms of process. If you want, I would be delighted to take a poll on the matter.

      As for apology, there is nothing to apologize for. We had a discussion. You feel strongly one way and I feel strongly another. We've had these several times over the past 6+ years we've known each other. If you feel there's something I need to apologize for, I would be honored to discuss it via email - rkinyon@cpan.org


      My criteria for good software:
      1. Does it work?
      2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?
        Note that the blog I pointed to for Adam was from 2008. So yes, your 2006 discussion is somewhat out of date. In the discussion at the link I gave he was told the proposed solution for his issue. He made it clear that he understands that that's the plan but he'll be a lot happier about it after he sees it happen. Which I take to mean that he's a little dubious that things will work out like the plan says. Frankly I'm in the same boat.

        A poll is unnecessary. If you want to make comments about "most", I won't dispute it one way or another. I don't have an opinion on that. It is only when you try to project the impression of virtually complete unanimity that I'll react.

        As for the apology, let's not bother taking this further. Past bad experiences have convinced me that if conversation in public goes poorly, then conversation in private will be even worse. If you don't think that you wish to apologize for saying "you keep ignoring this point" when I had, in fact, addressed it repeatedly then that is your choice.

        About that other thread. You seem to believe that we were discussing a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact. As long as you keep that basic misconception, you're unlikely to question your assumptions about the world deeply enough to reconsider your beliefs. (I do not say that lightly. I try to be extremely careful to keep clear on the distinction between fact and belief.)

        As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is at an end. Unless you say something startlingly new, I won't reply to any replies.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://678697]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others scrutinizing the Monastery: (14)
As of 2014-04-17 20:00 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    April first is:







    Results (454 votes), past polls