http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=678798


in reply to Re^2: Why Change?
in thread Why Change?

Wrong or is this semantics? This thread:
http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=614624

...began the day I started debating with timtoady (not knowing whom he was) over why Perl 6 repulsed me. I noted how perl 6 broke years worth of my work, changed all the one sigil operators to bizarre hieroglyphics (~~ is string cat because it looks like .. strings?), and reeked of intellectual theorycraft instead of a pragmatic tool for programmers in the real world. I'm willing to change my opinion on this- I want to- but if you read that thread, LW clearly differentiates perl 5 and 6 as being separated by decades, and the motivation for naming it Perl to use the legacy reputation of perl 5.

Perl 6 is a ground-up rewrite with no relation to perl 5 in code or compatibility, with a stark departure in grammar/syntax. Is this a better sounding sentence? Looks more like python to me on the blogs than perl. I'm sure you've all done some fantastic work on perl 6, but you're going to find the same reactions if people believe perl 6 supports perl code as we know it.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Why Change?
by Porculus (Hermit) on Apr 07, 2008 at 22:34 UTC
    perl 6 broke years worth of my work, changed all the one sigil operators to bizarre hieroglyphics (~~ is string cat because it looks like .. strings?), and reeked of intellectual theorycraft instead of a pragmatic tool for programmers in the real world.

    This is the same reaction I have pretty much every time I look at a sample of Perl6 code: a mixture of "WTF?", "Ugh!", and "that wasn't broke! Why did they change that?".

    But if I've learned one thing in my life, it's that it's nearly always worth persevering with new things. Time and time again I recoil from some change; time and time again, a while later the reasons behind it suddenly make sense, and I find myself wondering how I ever lived without it.

    A Perl6 example: the weird new for syntax. God, I can scarcely express how much I hated that the first time I saw it. Then I read the justification for it, and then I looked back over my code and saw how many places I'd had to use some tedious workaround to iterate over two arrays in parallel, and suddenly I found myself wondering if there was a Perl6::For module on CPAN...

    I'm still far from converted -- God, I can scarcely express how much I hate Perl6's changes to sigil usage! -- but that little revelation has reminded me that the Perl6 design has not been based on changing stuff for the sake of it. I'm sure there's a good reason for the new sigil system, and when I have time to dip into Perl6 again I'm sure I'll find out what it is. (Though I hope it's something better than "to make the first ten minutes of Perl programming easier for dim-witted novices".)

[reply]
[d/l]
Re^4: Why Change?
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Apr 07, 2008 at 19:01 UTC
    LW clearly differentiates perl 5 and 6 as being separated by decades, and the motivation for naming it Perl to use the legacy reputation of perl 5.

    I read Larry's words as somewhat different, specifically:

    I have a moral claim on the name, and I want Perl 6 to be considered a better Perl than Perl 5. Call it Hubris if you like...

    Update: Removed unnecessary parts of my post.

[reply]
      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. "

      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.
[reply]
        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.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom