http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=736804

In the Healthcheck: Perl article mentioned in Healthcheck and the Perl Future, the author suggests that he and others think that Perl 5.10.0 should really be called Perl 5 Version 10.0.

I hadn't heard this before, but the more I reflect on it, the more I like the idea. For one, I think it sort of helps differentiate Perl 5 and Perl 6 as different languages, rather than as successor languages. Additionally, it's a subtle marketing trick to defeat the "no major release of Perl" in X years FUD, as it makes "Perl 5" a language and "Version 10" a major new release.

Had others heard this meme before? If so, where? And what do you think about the idea?

-xdg

Code written by xdg and posted on PerlMonks is public domain. It is provided as is with no warranties, express or implied, of any kind. Posted code may not have been tested. Use of posted code is at your own risk.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Perl 5.10.0 or Perl 5 Version 10?
by moritz (Cardinal) on Jan 16, 2009 at 12:55 UTC
    to defeat the "no major release of Perl" in X years FUD

    Changing the versioning scheme of a language shouldn't be driven by FUD.

    In fact there will always be some FUD, and you can't always change things just to avoid it. Whatever you do, somebody will complain about. That's life.

[reply]

      Not really a change of versioning, more a shift of emphasis.

      But then, I would say that, wouldn't I?

[reply]
Re: Perl 5.10.0 or Perl 5 Version 10?
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jan 16, 2009 at 13:53 UTC

    I've been thunking about this on and off ever since I read the news item and referenced blog entry. And I have vacillated back and forth between the three positions:

    1. An incremental (evolutionary) development path of a reliable stalwart.
    2. A revolutionary leap that builds upon, but is not constrained by, that stalwart.
    3. A future that favours useful and user-friendly enhancements to, (and where necessary), departures from, over backward compatibility.

    I'm done thunking; I favour option 3.

    And I suggest that "Perl5 v2" is a better nomenclature than the alternatives. And that what is currently designated as "perl 5.10.1", be re-designated as "Perl5 v2". And that the enhancements that currently require enabling be the default; and that they should require explicit disabling to retain 5.8.x backward compatibility.

    And that the facility to so disable, be deprecated immediately, with withdrawal muted for "Perl5 v2.1" (currently designated "Perl 5.12.0"). All releases between now and (as currently designated "Perl 5.12.0") Perl5 v2.1, would be nomeclatured as "perl5 v2.0.x".

    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
      /me sees no reason to be constrained by decimals, and would favour:

      Perl 5.X.0

      because it sounds cool. :)

      or possibly Perl 5.A.0

[reply]
Re: Perl 5.10.0 or Perl 5 Version 10?
by JavaFan (Canon) on Jan 16, 2009 at 12:17 UTC
    If "Perl 5 Version 10.0" is going to differentiate Perl 5 and Perl 6 as different languages, than it's also going to suggest that "Perl 5 Version 10.0" is very different from 5.8.9.

    But it isn't.

    Perl5 has been around since for over 14 years. Perl itself has been around for over 21 years. Perl 5.10.0 looks more like Perl 1.000 than Perl 6 looks like any version of Perl 5. The 5.X.Y numbering scheme predates Jon throwing mugs to the wall.

    I'd say that if there's a need to differentiate between Perl6 and Perl5, it's Perl6 that ought to rename. (But that has been proposed several times in the past, and it hasn't happened, and I doubt it will - but then, perl6 is unlikely going to happen before my retirement).

    Having said all of that, I don't think Piers will get his way. But he is (or was?) active in the Perl6 movement, so he may have more luck if he tries to rename Perl6.

[reply]
      Perl 6 is unlikely going to happen before my retirement....

      The next stable monthly release is next Tuesday. This will be, by my count, the 15th stable monthly release. Congratulations on your retirement!

[reply]

      We don't get to rename Perl. Perl is Larry's language. The various revisions of Larry's language over the years have addressed Larry's concerns and needs at the time. As those concerns go, so goes his language.

      Right now, he's working on the sixth revision of that language, and it looks like it's going to be a big one, but it's still his language. The family resemblance is still there. Sure, he could go all Wirthy on us and call it, I dunno, Titania, but if he does, that's his decision, not ours.

      Until Larry makes the unlikely decision to rename, the way we distinguish between Perl 5 and Perl 6 is pretty straightforward. We call Perl 5 "Perl 5" and we call Perl 6 "Perl 6". The meaning of 'Perl', unqualified, will shift over time, just as it shifted from carrying an implicit "4" to carrying an implicity "5" during the last great revision shift.

[reply]
Re: Perl 5.10.0 or Perl 5 Version 10?
by syphilis (Archbishop) on Jan 16, 2009 at 12:46 UTC
    ... it's a subtle marketing trick to defeat the "no major release of Perl" in X years FUD

    ... to be replaced with the "yet another (sigh) major release of Perl5" in X years FUD :-)

    Cheers,
    Rob
[reply]
Re: Perl 5.10.0 or Perl 5 Version 10?
by rir (Vicar) on Jan 16, 2009 at 15:48 UTC
    I propose that Perl 5 be redesignated as Perl. That Perl 6 be renamed Pirl; and the imminent Perl 7 be called Porl. This will
    • give us both greater differentiation and clear continuity;
    • let us develop synchronyms;
    • allow us to more finely assess the cluelessness of those who misspell or mispronounce their P[eiouEIOU][rR][Ll];
    • and, hopefully, give us time to resolve the matter of y being a vowel or not.

    Be well,
    rir

[reply]
[reply]
        I'm sure that would make the Yoplait people happy. Whether we, as a group, are ready to turn our backs on caffeine is questionable.

        Be well
        rir

[reply]
Re: Perl 5.10.0 or Perl 5 Version 10?
by Zen (Deacon) on Jan 16, 2009 at 21:56 UTC
    When I spoke of perl 5.8.8, I said "five-eight-eight." Now it's "five-ten." Just my own way of saying it, right or wrong, and my coworkers understand what I mean.
[reply]
      Both are significant improvements over "5 oh oh 5 (slight pause) oh 4" :)
[reply]
Re: Perl 5.10.0 or Perl 5 Version 10?
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jan 19, 2009 at 03:12 UTC

    Perl 5.10.0 should really be called Perl 5 Version 10.0.

    It already is, according to patchlevel.h in perl.git: 

    #define PERL_REVISION   5               /* age */
#define PERL_VERSION    10              /* epoch */
#define PERL_SUBVERSION 0               /* generation */

    [download]
[reply]
[d/l]
      Perl 5.10.0 should really be called Perl 5 Version 10.0
      s{called}{referred to colloquially as}

      -xdg

      Code written by xdg and posted on PerlMonks is public domain. It is provided as is with no warranties, express or implied, of any kind. Posted code may not have been tested. Use of posted code is at your own risk.

[reply]
[d/l]
        Obviously. It was a argument against claims that it's a new scheme, not an argument for status quo.
[reply]
Re: Perl 5.10.0 or Perl 5 Version 10?
by educated_foo (Vicar) on Jan 19, 2009 at 02:49 UTC
    Ugh. If we're taking branding cues from Sun "our stock is worth less than our cash on hand" Microsystems, why not go whole-hog and call it "Perl 5 version 10 enterprise edition?" Perl 6 is an 8-year-old comedy of errors, but playing version number games is the wrong response.
[reply]
      Oh lordy, don't remind me about Perl 5 Enterprise Edition, which I always thought was a joke that got taken worryingly seriously.
[reply]

Back to Meditations