Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
I do think the long name (including version number) should not have been Perl 6. Mind you, that includes the 6. Because the "6" part is the problem, not the "Perl" part. In my opinion, it's okay to reserve a version number only if you can deliver it within a year. This is my primary complain about the current situation as well. By taking the version number 6 long before anything was ready it signalled that Perl 5 was dead and soon to be replaced by something new. When that new thing didnt come out it left the meme in the market that both Perl 5 and Perl 6 were dead, (one of old age and the other still-born). This meme is doubly incorrect, Perl 6 isnt still-born, and Perl 5 is most definitely not dead of old age. I really hope that Larry takes the opportunity over this summers conferences to push the point that neither are dead. Especially Perl 5 as I believe that Perl 6 will prove its point when its released but that Perl 5 is currently suffering from the confusion in the marketplace.
--- $world=~s/war/peace/g In reply to Re^2: What's wrong with Perl 6?
by demerphq
|
|