Re: Will Perl 6 Replace Perl 5?

[mr_mischief]

To those making these threads possible, I really appreciate the work you guys are doing on Perl6 (and on PerlMonks for one of the forums on which they keep popping up). I can understand both sides of the name debate, and have no problem deferring to Larry, as it's his baby. I can understand most of both sides on the debates about dates and versions and making tentative predictive announcements.

An estimated checklist and schedule of "this functionality x" in one column and "this date y" in another column would be handy if it was kept accurate. I'd rather time be put into the implementation than apologizing for the checklist and revising it, though. If it can't be reasonably accurate, I think it's not worthwhile and could cause more harm than good.

As for artificial version numbers that coordinate with book releases (as in Perl 4) or with marketing's needs (as in software packages too numerous to mention), I've always doubted their usefulness to actual IT professionals. "Version 3" might be good for specifying a package to management so that management can specify it to purchasing. My favorite numbering scheme, though, is akin to "2010.01.16" or even just "20100116", either of which are informative of sequence, easily sortable, and informative of date released since they are in fact release dates. Feature checklists for historical versions can just list dates, and release date information is usually included in those sorts of tables for perspective anyway. Using the date released as the version packs more information into a smaller overall space, and gets that information into a more visible place.

"Perl6" sounds more like a sequel to "Perl5" (or a new volume in a set) than an upgrade, so I'm not offended or hurt at all that it's not the same exact language. I don't expect "Terminator 2" or "Toy Story 2" to be the same stories as their predecessors, either. I did expect a similar product with a cast that included some existing characters. A new tool with a new integer part should be, according to my thinking about version numbers, a new tool that solves the same sort of problems as its predecessor. Like a book sequel that has multiple printings in which bugs get fixed, it's a new item with its own revision history and its own version numbers.

I'll employ the book metaphor a bit more, since language implementations and books about them go hand in hand so often anyway. I think of "Perl6" as the title, not an edition. Maybe in this case book volumes in a set make more sense than a prequel and sequel situation, but the idea is the same. The metaphor may not be the best, but people need to understand that Perl6 is "Perl, Volume 6" with its own editions, revisions, and printings more than it is "Perl, 6th Edition, Barely Revised, First Printing".

Once again, thanks to all of you who make Perl6 increasingly more relevant. I hope in the end threads like these make your work more rewarding, though it seems right now they mostly make the PR part of it more frustrating.