Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW

Re^6: Why Change?

by TimToady (Parson)
on Apr 08, 2008 at 00:52 UTC ( #678867=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re^5: Why Change?
in thread Why Change?

LW says, "I've also seen what happens to other languages that change their name. They basically lose their branding, and have to start all over. I'm too Lazy to do all that work again. "
Sorry, you can't make your logic flow uphill like that. You're attempting to argue that, because branding is one reason to keep the name Perl, it is the only reason. But there are many reasons for keeping the name Perl, so you fall afoul of the Fallacy of the Single Cause here.
He also says, "Plus there's a longstanding cultural assumption that major version numbers indicate incompatible changes, despite the recent trend for marketeers to pretend that great strides have been made when they haven't."

...but himself broke that assumption with prior perl's.

First of all, that's beside the point. Whether I ever broke the assumption has nothing to do with whether it's a cultural assumption, or with whether it should be a cultural assumption.

Second, the premise is arguably false in the case of Perl because all but one of the major transitions did, in fact, have incompatible changes on the binary and license levels regardless of the continuity maintained at the syntax level. And Perl 4 was majorly incompatible with Perl 3 in the sense that it was documented on dead trees. :)

But it's really hard to figure out exactly which other fallacies you're falling afoul of, simply because you don't actually make the argument, but just present what you think of as evidence and expect us to invent some kind of connection , somehow or other. Or maybe it's one of these. I can't tell unless you actually state the syllogism you want us to infer.

So basically, all this up-hill arguing leads me to believe that one of two things is likely to be true: either (A), you don't really know how logic works, or (B), you don't care because you are really trying to make an emotional argument about the pain you're feeling. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's (B), but if so, you really need to brush up your skills there, because there are much more powerful fallacies at your disposal than merely asserting provocative overgeneralizations.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Why Change?
by Zen (Deacon) on Apr 09, 2008 at 00:06 UTC
    Wow, that's big of you to give me the benefit of the doubt.

    You've made some effort here to dodge my points, the OP, and the thread in its entirety to attempt to flame me with wikipedia links and philosophy toys. If there is an emotional reaction in sight, it is your post, sir. It does confuse me in the sense that this site has gone to some lengths to extol and promote your perl legacy and perl 5, but any discourse or concern that arises is met with responses like this, or the *accurate* quotes I pasted. Are you upset I posted them or that you even said them at all? I don't claim any tautologies that the only benefit to calling it perl 6 was what you posted (I worked with what you gave me), but you have read them as such. I would like to hear your other reasons about why we now have two active languages both called perl, especially since one will not be replacing the other.

    Now to give you insight to my post in this thread. I saw an appropriately titled thread and conversation about perl 6, shared my comments, and departed. My view is that of a programmer who is in the trenches, wading through decades worth of bad ideas from the Information Age to get work done. Intellectual superiority over some OO feature in another language does not amuse me. Matter of fact, you may notice that most of the posts in SOPW are coders just like me where bosses expect things done quickly if not yesterday. I'm possibly mistaken, but I was under the impression you used to be in these shoes, and this puzzles me even further on why you cannot understand the counterpoints in this thread, nor tolerate them.

    Let's detour to actually being on topic. You mention that there were binary inconsistencies between perls, even if the syntax was largely supported. Now we have a complete rewrite with a new syntax that seems to be inspired from a variety of other languages. This only supports my assertion that perl 6 is so dissimilar as to be a new language entirely that abandons many years of code and contributions. Advising the OP to use the right tool for the right job makes sense here since it is not an upgrade. That's not to disrespect perl 6; it's basic engineer practice.

    Next talking point is more along the lines of, hey this is the internet and a perl forum where people go to discuss perl topics good and bad. Every language has pros and cons. Nobody is out to get perl ("Which perl?" says the Future) in any malicious way. You should be able to handle criticism, even when it is brutally honest. I have a great amount of respect and gratitude towards the work you and the p5p crew have done with perl 5. It is the only language that doesn't force me to think like the language. Thanks.

    It would be nice if you spent some time considering threads like this and the questions that get raised repeatedly, and perhaps posting a FAQ or Statement. Things like the intended audience for perl 6, distribution intentions, the fate of ++, the general reaction to the syntax, and any of a number of everyday discussions we have at this site. This would have been a lot better instead of spending your only post on a valid community thread flaming me.
      I don't think you're being flamed. Larry knows Larry's reasons. You claim to know his reasons. You're going to have to show some really keen analytical and logical skills to convince anyone that you understand Larry better than Larry does.

      The only part of the post to which you responded which I can imagine you think is a flame is where there's a very straightforward description of what another party thinks are the failings of your logic in this particular case. That's not a flame.

      It might not be sugar-coated and disproportionately polite compared to the statements you've made condemning the Perl6 team, but it in no way questions your honesty, integrity, intelligence, race, class, species, or parentage. There is no attack directed at you in that post at all, and only observations of why your points of discourse are not being accepted by another person. That's about as respectful as someone who thinks you've totally cocked up your argument (my words, not TimToady's) can be in responding to you.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://678867]
and all is quiet...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others browsing the Monastery: (7)
As of 2018-05-25 17:37 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?