Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Perl 6 Optimism

p6weekly.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 243 posts

Re: Perl 6 Optimism

#81

Post by scardine »

collyw wrote: post #18
simias wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much. I used to use Perl 5 a lot but I never considered using Perl 6 and eventually moved on from the Perl ecosystem altogether. The huge advantage of Perl ~10 years ago was the massive amount of CPAN packages but in the meantime python & friends mostly caught up in my experience. Meanwhile the shiny new revolutionary Perl 6 took forever to release and when it finally did nobody cared anymore. Quoting Wikipedi…

The failure to admit it was going slowly was another killer. It will be released at Christmas, we just aren't telling you which one. After a few years of hoping, I gave up and am in the world of Python and Django. Its a shame as Perl feels like a more powerful / expressive language than Python.

I'm one that moved to Python and don't want to look back. It is not that Python is easier read (I would say it is less noisy) but it is almost impossible to write your own "DSL" like you can do with Perl or Ruby.

YMMV but for me this is what makes it easy to maintain: you just need to learn Python not the personal programming style of the previous developer.

Re: Perl 6 Optimism

#82

Post by vgy7ujm »

BeetleB wrote: post #67
vgy7ujm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Being "forced to use Python" sucks as a Perl developer.

On the flip side, being forced to use Perl always sucks. I mean it only as a half joke, unfortunately.

I would love to be forced to use Perl :)

As a side note, "forced" often means "we have a lot of beginners here and they want to do Python".

Re: Perl 6 Optimism

#83

Post by petre »

cthor wrote: post #52
petre wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were numerous discussions about this and it was decided against it. Eventually one would use Perl 5 from inside Perl 6 with the "use v5" statement.

Clarification: Decided by the Perl 6 devs who want to keep the name and don't seem to care about the damage that decision does to Perl 5

One of the discussion was on the Perl blogs[1]. Most of the devs there are Perl 5 devs and they also decided against the name change. Perl 6 is the next iteration of Perl that has been redesigned from the ground up. Why should it bare a different name? Yes, the redesign took more than a decade and it's incompatible with Perl 5, but so is Python 3.6 compared to 2.7, albeit to a lesser extent. Even Perl 5.26 has changed a lot since 5.6. In fact the least common denominator is 5.10.1. Using older versions is discouraged since they're largely unsupported by the majority of CPAN modules.

1. http://blogs.perl.org

Re: Perl 6 Optimism

#84

Post by perlgeek »

cousin_it wrote: post #25

Another year, another chance for all involved to learn the important rationality skill of recognizing sunk costs and opportunity costs, and give up when giving up is the best option. http://lesswrong.com/lw/gx/just_lose_hope_already/

If Perl 6 were a centrally managed and funded effort to create a popular language, I would a agree that the one who funds it would look at adoption numbers and time spent, and declare it sunk cost, and try to achieve their objectives through other means.

But everybody who's working on Perl 6 does it because they enjoy it, learn by doing it etc. Why should they declare it a failure? Usage numbers are slowly, slowly creeping up, and working with and on Perl 6 can be real fun.

If I'd work on it regardless on how much of my previous time I invested in it, why should I even consider sunk costs?

Re: Perl 6 Optimism

#85

Post by perlgeek »

systems wrote: post #58

how would one describe Perl 6 type system? Is it dynamically typed, optionally typed, statically typed?

It's gradually typed. Which means there are dynamic type checks, and optional static type declarations as well.

If the compiler can prove the outcome of a type check at compile time, it can throw a type error or optimize out the runtime check, depending on the outcome.

Re: Perl 6 Optimism

#86

Post by kstrauser »

Perl Pessimism: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=perl

I have happy memories of Perl, and it started me on the path that led to a nice career of Python awesomeness. Thanks, Perl! That said, I can't imagine a plausible scenario where I'd ever consider using it again. I almost certainly wouldn't use it professionally because it's not exactly going to light up a resume. Yes, there are still Perl shops. But no, there aren't very many of them, and I'd be highly suspicious of an engineering department still writing new code in it today without a very good reason.

Re: Perl 6 Optimism

#87

Post by petre »

vgy7ujm wrote: post #23
petre wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were numerous discussions about this and it was decided against it. Eventually one would use Perl 5 from inside Perl 6 with the "use v5" statement.

If this really had worked seamlessly it would be great. But that includes /usr/bin/perl working this way on every OS etc... with a clear&easy upgrade path for existing code.

Well Perl 5 needs a spec in order to be supported inside Perl 5. Otherwise which version do you support? 5.6? 5.10.1? 5.16?

Re: Perl 6 Optimism

#88

Post by currymj »

crusso wrote: post #40

I spent a huge amount of time in my 20's writing Perl 4 & 5 scripts. Even though I no longer use Perl, I still feel nostalgic about it. That said, I can't find any reason to pick up Perl 6 and start learning it. With so many other useful and interesting languages out there: Python, Elixir, Elm, Rust, etc... what appeal should Perl 6 have to the masses these days? Is anyone jumping into Perl 6 like they did with Ruby…

it is a really interesting language, in the sense of having many unique and unusual features.

Re: Perl 6 Optimism

#89

Post by throwaway7645 »

pletnes wrote: post #22
cesarb wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in case you have no idea how to enter ⤐ or whatever. Did you mean to type a black square there, or is my Android phone missing a font? In any case, this shows a potential issue with using Unicode characters for operators or identifiers: unless it's from a common Unicode block (like basic Greek letters), it might not be readable. It's not just writing that can be a problem.

I heard many times that perl is «write only». Unicode operators takes it to the next level.

APL has used a huge set of non ASCII characters for more than 30 years in production by large companies.

Re: Perl 6 Optimism

#90

Post by cygx »

gaius wrote: post #80
dragonwriter wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, old established language are in heavier use at large, established organizations. By that metric, COBOL is awesome.

There are real companies doing real work in newer languages like Swift and Go too. Perl 6 is a toy in comparison. Zoffix Znet I use it at $work for throw-away one-liners Awesome

There are real companies doing real work in newer languages like Swift and Go too

Apples and oranges, given that Swift and Go were started with the deep pockets of Apple and Google behind them.

Look at Ruby for a more fair comparison: It took 10 years to take off, stayed "hot" for ~3 years and has been in slow decline ever since.

Post reply on HN