I admit to laugh, quite openly, when I read things (in the linked article) such as ... “there are things about regex culture that need breaking.” That is truly spoken like someone who doesn’t have a million lines of in-service legacy code to maintain. “Yee, hah, let’s go changing the fundamental meaning of the language to make it (according to me, and the rest of you are wrong) –er.” If you think I’m going to approve a budget-dime for that, or lobby for it to be approved, you’re nuts.
That’s why Perl-6 is still, stillborn. Because a programming language, really, is quite a small thing compared to the vast amount of in-service application and CPAN-library code that is out there. (The market value of which, I think, rests easily in the billions of dollars.) There is no evolutionary transition-plan here; not does one appear to be possible, let alone economical, let alone particularly beneficial. It would be very nice (may-be) if it were otherwise, but it isn’t. The syntax may be “ugly,” but there are by-now millions of examples of it in $$$ervice.
|Comment on Re: Capturing parenthesis and grouping square brackets|
|Perl 6 <-> Perl 5 bridges (was Re^2: Capturing parenthesis and grouping square brackets)|
by raiph (Hermit) on Jun 19, 2013 at 05:02 UTC
by Anonymous Monk on Jun 19, 2013 at 19:27 UTC
by raiph (Hermit) on Jun 20, 2013 at 23:06 UTC
by Anonymous Monk on Jun 20, 2013 at 23:47 UTC
by Jenda (Abbot) on Jun 20, 2013 at 23:43 UTC
by raiph (Hermit) on Jun 21, 2013 at 08:32 UTC
by Jenda (Abbot) on Jun 21, 2013 at 08:57 UTC
by raiph (Hermit) on Jun 21, 2013 at 11:50 UTC
by raiph (Hermit) on Jun 28, 2013 at 02:23 UTC