|XP is just a number|
I admit, I voted this post ++. Uaaaaaargh.
Although I totally refuse the PHP part, I'd like to stress some valid points of the poor poster.
To give you some perspective, I work mostly on statistical and geometrical algorithms, so that I have a lot of context switching between OO (application framework), procedural (numerics i.e. multidimensional numerical optimization), functional (inference) programming style. For such a situation perl is by far the most convenient language because I can chose the language constructs that are the most convenient for the task at hand.However, there seems to be to much OO pressure in the development of perl6, to much closed shop style. All this "pattern" stuff, and "architecture" murmuring. Hate me, but this is like speaking about the windows, without thinking about the house.
May be this is part of the language darwinism: those who get the most money have the most time can spend the most time for development in OS stuff like perl.
On the other hand, what is it useful for to convert perl 5 to yaool (pronounce it, with a long aooooooooo at night!) , that is yet another object oriented language? Moreover, doesn't this darwinian style selection mean that the future is sacrificed for the present?
Ok, to prevent misunderstanding: I agree with the part of the aimless development cycle perl is in.
Although I see a tendency that O'Reilly may have too much influence on perl, but this is mainly through the excellent books. Of course excellence means influence.