Re^11: The future of Perl?

[wjw]

Simplify, simplify, simplify. (But that's only what I would do...)

Perhaps call it Perl -- (instead of the ++ designator) symbolizing the reduction and begin versioning backwards from 5.20.x .

The turning point 0.0 (the point where simplicity/quality goals have been achieved) would be when one started adding platforms back into the mix, with progress being shown by negative numbers?

P-- -0.0 -> P-- -0.1 ... -> P -- -1.0 etc...

Thus Perl5 -> 6 could continue on its long painful journey and the new Perl -- would not get in the way...

Suppose version control would have to get good at counting backwards, but I am sure that could be addressed...

Update:This was somewhat intended as tongue-in-cheek, but only somewhat. I understand that it could be considered diminutive, however, that is not what I meant. Instead, I mean it to be "against the grain" as in the reverse of the "jenga tower". Rebuild a solid base re-factoring only the best of what is already core along with what has been stacked on top in such a way that the base is solid, a foundation that addresses the concerns expressed in the various posts on this thread.

If the goal is to re-factor in order to simplify, optimize and provide a more solid foundation, and that is the opposite of what is currently happening, then a name which clearly indicates that change of direction is a good thing IMHO.

If it is done well, the diminutive connotation is forgotten and the name becomes the new standard for that which can/should be achieved. If not, then the effort is diminutive, not the name: Much like the meaning of the phrase "Made in Japan" has changed over time here in the US(perhaps elsewhere as well, I am not that well traveled to be able to say). Regardless of the reason(Deming, desire, hard work), the meaning of that phrase changed.

Isn't that what this is really all about? Finding a way to change? A different path forward? That path sounds to me like going back to the beginning to leverage what has been learned along the way? Let the name reflect it, make it a challenge to the status quo.

[BrowserUk]

Instead, I mean it to be "against the grain" as in the reverse of the "jenga tower".

I understood your drift, but I think that whilst it might make some sense to those in the know at the beginning, it would rapidly be lost over time and to those without knowledge of the history.

The are other reasons:

• Perhaps primary amongst them is the problem of searching for terms that contain symbol characters.

  Hence so many C++ sites/posts end up spelling it out: Cplusplus, which is just wrong.

• Instead of post-modern perl we get post-decremented perl.

  Is that better or worse than predecremented Perl.

• Whilst I don't not like the 'a double negative is a positive' aspect; I think it would just be annoying over time.

  A bit like Yahoo!'s pling that means they'll forever be the subject headlines like "Yahoo! Made! $8bn! In! One! Day! And! You'll! Easily! Guess! How!", "'Yahoo! Breaks! Every! Mailing! List! In! The! World!' says email guru", "Marissa! Mayer! ends! 21! month! dry! spell! as! Yahoo! sales! grow!", "Yahoo! finally! releases! Flickr! app! for! iPad! BUT! shuns! Windows! fans!"

[wjw]

Good points, one and all...

Thanks

[BrowserUk]

Perhaps call it Perl --

I don't like that name much; sounds diminutive.

I think I would call any perl 5.x successor perlV (perlV.exe) and then versions would be the year(&month?) of release.

So perlV 2015.3 might be followed 6 months later by perlV 2015.9 followed by perlV 2016.3 and so on. Still Perl 5, but different; upgraded; current.