Re: Re: Perl 6: will we us it?by ihb (Deacon)
|on Jun 23, 2003 at 12:25 UTC||Need Help??|
I just think it needs to stick to what it is good at instead of trying to be something it was never meant to be.
Many times have I thought that about software. A popular example is ICQ which got all bloated pretty early on. And Winamp 3 is no fun. I keep running old-school Winamp 2. But I'm not worried. There is an old Winamp, and there are several alternative ICQ clients. Someone thought that ICQ no longer did what it was good at, and made another client that suited them and other better.
Or look at CGI.pm. Can you count the lite alternatives to it?
I expect a Perl::Lite dialect to arise (perhaps even using Parrot) if the changes in Perl6 will make Perl less good at what it's supposed to be good at.
I understand the worries people have about CPAN and related issues. Will I ultimately be forced into Perl6? I can even sympathize with that question. Yet I don't know; I still believe in evolution. If I'm forced into Perl6 then it's most likely because people like Perl6 and then it's an overall good. If I'm not forced into it, some anti-thesis helped forming the synthesis. If I and others dislikes it--yet too few to change Perl6's course--I'll get an own formation of developers that keep my flank of the community going. If you're one of them I believe it's simply called tough luck.
Personally I will put my hat on and see where this boat will sail me. It might be the Ark, it might be Titanic. But I'm confident that if I'm on Titanic a Titinic::Lite will come and offer me a ride before Titanic sinks. I'm not a ship architect myself, so for the time being I keep my eyes open at the horizon--for both land, ice bergs, and fellow boats.Just my thoughts,