RE: Perl, the new generation

I've been wondering for quite some time whether we were creating a Perl for
the purpose of cleaning up the ridiculously rigged Perl 5 internals, or
creating a Perl for the simple enjoyment of creating a new programming
language. Certainly, recent discussions would point to the latter; as we
move farther and farther away from Perl 5 syntax, we move dangerously close
to completely closing Perl as a viable tool for the gazillions of users who
have the misfortune of legacy. This legacy isn't just a website or a utility
here and there anymore, but often an entire suite of software, or tools
integrated into operating systems, some or much of which the user may not
even be aware of. Translating is not an option for these people.

"A slow transition" may be a catchphrase nowadays, but with Perl 5 stagnant,
5.6 accepted on only two systems that I'm aware of (SuSE and Win32/AS;
rejected everywhere else), and PHP/Python/.NET ready to swollow up anyone
who would believe anything, I'm concerned that this transition may not
exist.

So, I'll go you one farther. What about creating a cleaned up perl, and
letting those who want to play with a new language entirely do so in the
form of a true fork. Certainly, Perl 6 is coming to resemble Perl 5 little
more than PHP and resembles Perl 5 and Perl 5 resembles C. We haven't even
started writing the actual tool(s): we haven't even completed planning
without coming up with a tool that only resembles Perl due to a use of $@%&,
as an offspring rather than a serious hot bath. If we keep this up, Larry's
95% mark will end up going to 90%, 85%, and then "who knows".

I DO NOT DISLIKE the changes that I'm seeing. However, their coolness ends
when it comes time to trace through my entire operating system(s) and change
every perl file that exists here; and the thought of a mass exodous to
Python/PHP because we've made Perl 5 obsolete and scared off the rest of our
community, especially corporate members, is completely unappealing.
Corporate users do not think in terms of neat and novel, they think in terms
of how much work it's going to be to keep up with the complete overhaul of a
language versus moving to a language with a stable syntax once and not
having to deal with it again. We will not soon rise above that kind of bad
opinion.

FUD? Perhaps. Reality? Definitely. Python books are already full of FUD, and
I've had to stop reading .NET books because just holding the books in my
hand makes my blood pressure rise 90 points. Imagine what will happen when
that FUD turns serious and actually costs Perl users a great deal of money?

Unless Perl 6 is capable of parsing and running that 99.9% (or higher) of
Perl 5 scripts originally foretold, I foresee a far worse outcome for Perl 6
than has happened for an almost universally rejected 5.6 and 5.6.1.

Fun is fun. But work costs money, guys. And if you cost people money with a
free tool, repercussions could be bad not just for Perl but for free
languages, among which Perl has heretofore been the leader of the pack.

Actually, Peter, I was getting very, very close to writing this anyway.



David T. Grove
Blue Square Group
[email protected]
[email protected]


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Scott [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 12:20 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Perl, the new generation
>
>
> This is a long shot, but here goes.
>
> I was thinking about Perl 6 this morning while jogging (blithely ignoring
> the forest scenery).  It occurred to me that what appears to be
> emerging as
> the new language embodies bigger changes than I ever anticipated
> - which is
> great, software should improve with time.  And so I found myself
> wondering
> whether the title does it justice.  Perl 6 is looking to me
> almost like an
> entirely new language.  The change from Perl 5 to Perl 6 is much, much
> larger than the change from Perl 4 to Perl 5 (virtually all Perl
> 4 code ran
> unmodified under Perl 5).
>
> So, I wonder aloud, do we want to signify that degree of change
> with a more
> dramatic change in the name?  Still Perl, but maybe Perl 7, Perl 10, Perl
> 2001, Perl NG, Perl* - heck, I don't know, I'm just trying to get the
> creative juices flowing.  I do believe that the tremendous effort that is
> going into Perl 6 deserves more attention than I think it will get with
> that title.
>
> At some point, the Perl 6 cognomen will have attracted enough
> inertia that
> we couldn't reasonably change it even if we wanted to.  Maybe
> that time has
> already come.  Maybe not.  Can't hurt to raise the question.
> --
> Peter Scott
> Pacific Systems Design Technologies
> http://www.perldebugged.com
>