|Syntactic Confectionery Delight|
Re^3: Would you suggest alternative names for Perl 6?by sundialsvc4 (Abbot)
|on Dec 08, 2014 at 18:33 UTC||Need Help??|
Okay, I’ll take-on this assertion and even (why not?) assert that every one of you who “down-voted” my post did so because you are both clueless and wrong!!” (Cowabunga! Here goes!! Downvote me! I don’t care!! Wheeee!!!)
Computer-programming languages don’t have “successors.” If they had, then IBM’s PL/1 would have “succeeded” both FORTRAN and COBOL, because it was very-obviously “–er” than both of them ...
... and yet, it didn’t. Why not?? You can still license FORTRAN and COBOL from IBM. Why??
The very-simple answer is two-fold:
Those arguments might have been successful ... a couple decades ago “when all of this was so very young.™” H-o-w-e-v-e-r . . .
It should surprise no one that someone who has already spent a million-plus dollars on something, would be quite unwilling to spend the same sums (or more??) all over again. And yet, this seems to make perfect sense to the Geeks™ who were the recipients of “the first million.” Having, not two years before, “extolled the eternal virtues of Perl-5” to the Powers That Be,™ they now stand before the very same decision-makers and coo, “ohh, but we were so wrong ‘back then.’ Just give us X-Million Dollars again, and this time ... thanks to the (by the way, not-compatible ...) Perl-6 ... it will [trust us ...] be so much better.”
The real-world business proposition of Computer Software is not something that can actually be “solved” by building “a better wrench or pair-of-pliers.” The present world does not require a better way to approach programming if the only available way to achieve “better” is to, once again(!), start over. Like it or not, having embarked down a particular technical path (and having first obtained the financial permission to do so ...), you don’t today get the automatic green-light to throw everything away and start over. If you want to improve your technical situation, you will find yourself to be obliged to do it within the context of what you already have at your disposal.
And it just so happens that the Perl-5 language has shown itself to be able to go “much beyond the call of duty” in this regard. (Prithee, can you name for me any recent language for which Moose even would have been a technical possibility? Well, I’ve been around a long time now, and I cannot name a single one.)
Quite frankly, I consider Moose to be “a fundamental game-changer” that has been very seriously overlooked ... even by the Perl-6 team. (Especially by the Perl-6 team ...) The conventional wisdom has been that, in order to make any sort of significant improvement from the past, you must abandon that past. (The ADD 1 TO COBOL GIVING COBOL. pundits fared no better with this train of reasoning ...) Well, it so happens that this is not the case anymore.
Fact is, the language-systems that we have today ... including Perl-5, Python-2, etc... ... are not “so awful, old, and decrepit” that we must persuade our employers/clients to scrap(!!) the million-dollar investments that we somehow talked them into yesterday. Quite frankly, I think that the Perl-6 contingent fell on its face by asserting that “Perl-<6” had no more business value. They based their entire business proposition upon that fact, and upon their entirely-presumptive stance as “heir apparent.”
haXe is a game-chnger. One among many.“The world,” as we live in it today, “is all about game changers.” The Perl-6 project took as its prime-directive the proposition that, in order to “improve upon™” the Perl-<6 world, it must “replace” it. And when the current-world proved itself not-so-willing to be summarily replaced, it simply did not know what to do. It still does not.
I do not apologize for being the jester in this case.