Re: The future of Perl?

Issac Asimov opined in the preface to "Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare" that the English language has changed little since that time simply because we wish to read The Bard in the original. I think that Perl 5 will be with us for a long time for the same reason. It really is that good of a tool.

Moose is providing a bridge to Perl 6 but at the price of feeling "heavy" as it were. Moo is advancing Perl 5 while still being "perlish". Perl 5 will be viable and even grow for quite some time thanks to that.

You must always remember that the primary goal is to drain the swamp even when you are hip-deep in alligators.

Comment on Re: The future of Perl?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: The future of Perl? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Nov 09, 2014 at 03:24 UTC
When I asked my friend about Moose/Mouse/Moo etc., he said: "If people want object orientation, they use Java or C++; that isn't what they want Perl for.", and I agree. With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' 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]
Re^3: The future of Perl? by boftx (Deacon) on Nov 09, 2014 at 03:36 UTC
Then we should agree to disagree. You must always remember that the primary goal is to *drain the swamp* even when you are hip-deep in alligators.	[reply]
Re^3: The future of Perl? by Arunbear (Prior) on Nov 10, 2014 at 11:26 UTC
What's the reasoning behind that point of view?	[reply]
Re^4: The future of Perl? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Nov 10, 2014 at 11:46 UTC
Our collective experience. That is what both my friend, who runs a small software house, and I have seen over the last 12 years. Companies/gov.depts. that want their software developed using OOD/OOP, are looking for 'software engineering'. They want compiled code and type safety, and defined standards, and ISO9000 and buzzwords compliance and all that good stuff. They ain't Perl. Java or C++, or C#, maybe a few OCaml. The 'safe' choices. Companies that (at least a few years ago) would accept Perl solutions want them to work -- usually yesterday -- and were much less fussed about the style of programming used provided it was simple, clear and maintainable. That's not OO. With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' 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]
Re^5: The future of Perl? by Arunbear (Prior) on Nov 10, 2014 at 14:03 UTC
Re^6: The future of Perl? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Nov 10, 2014 at 19:32 UTC
Re^3: The future of Perl? by Jenda (Abbot) on Nov 11, 2014 at 14:24 UTC
If they want object orientation they should not be using Java or C++. I'm inclined to say they should not be using C++ unless they have a huge codebase already in any case. Jenda Enoch was right! Enjoy the last years of Rome.	[reply]
Re^4: The future of Perl? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Nov 11, 2014 at 14:33 UTC
If they want object orientation they should not be using Java or C++. You'll have to explain that? With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' 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]
Re^5: The future of Perl? by Arunbear (Prior) on Nov 13, 2014 at 12:30 UTC
Re^6: The future of Perl? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Nov 13, 2014 at 15:03 UTC


good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW
	PerlMonks