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

Ask HN: Is Perl dead?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 140 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is Perl dead?

#111

Post by philwelch »

perigrin wrote: post #110
philwelch wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being evasive, which is equal parts amusing and irritating. Maybe Perl 6 is an exercise in deconstructing the concept of a software product ever being done? As long as the official language specification refers to Perl 6 in the future tense, I will as well. Take it up with Larry Wall. For those of us who don't play linguistic existential games, BTW, Perl 5 has been "done" since 1994. I think most of us recogni…

And yet, the fine people on p5p keep making changes to something you're trying to claim is "done". You suggest elsewhere that "done"ness is a 100% thing. If Perl5 keeps changing, and it was 100% done in 1994 ... something is really inconsistent with the universe. chromatic's pedantry is a symptom of people like us ignoring the fact that even a language like TeX will only be done when the author decides it's done (Knu…

I did say, "I think most of us recognize that you can continue maintaining and updating software after it's done/finished/released."

Whether a software project is release-quality or not is a rather basic concept to everyone else. It can be intellectually tempting to try and deconstruct these basic concepts, but more often than not it's an exercise in evasion rather than illumination. Perl 6 (or Perl 6.0.0 for the pedantic) is a work in progress--at some point in the near future, the spec and implementations will be "done" to a point where everyone will agree that this is Perl 6.0.0, every implementation that matches the spec and passes the tests is Perl 6.0.0, and work will begin on Perl 6.1. Perl 5.0.0 reached that state in the past--16 years or so in the past to be precise. There's a distinction here that's dishonest to evade.

If the Perl 6 community is more interested in using linguistic evasion and deconstructing the concept of the finished release more than they're interested in actually making a finished release though, I'd best leave it to them. Maybe this is what Larry Wall meant about the postmodernism. Who knows? My mind is still blown by the observation that you have to doubletalk your way around the idea that Perl 6 hasn't reached 6.0.0 final yet.

Re: Ask HN: Is Perl dead?

#112

Post by chromatic »

philwelch wrote: post #111
perigrin wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, the fine people on p5p keep making changes to something you're trying to claim is "done". You suggest elsewhere that "done"ness is a 100% thing. If Perl5 keeps changing, and it was 100% done in 1994 ... something is really inconsistent with the universe. chromatic's pedantry is a symptom of people like us ignoring the fact that even a language like TeX will only be done when the author decides it's done (Knu…

I did say, "I think most of us recognize that you can continue maintaining and updating software after it's done/finished/released." Whether a software project is release-quality or not is a rather basic concept to everyone else. It can be intellectually tempting to try and deconstruct these basic concepts, but more often than not it's an exercise in evasion rather than illumination. Perl 6 (or Perl 6.0.0 for the ped…

It can be intellectually tempting to try and deconstruct these basic concepts....

I'd like to see a unified theory of version numbers while you're at it. It'd be nice to account for Ubuntu, OpenBSD, Mplayer, Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, the Linux kernel, and TeX at minimum. After that, care to decipher what "beta" or "alpha" or "pre-release" means?

If the Perl 6 community is more interested in using linguistic evasion....

I'd take your argument at all seriously if it were more honest, say either "I don't believe any implementation of Perl 6 will ever meet the 6.0.0 spec" or "It shouldn't have taken ten years to release Rakudo Star." Those are debatable positions.

Arguing "But it doesn't really exist because you didn't releeeeeeease-release a fiiiiiinished-finished version!" is precisely the epistemological-linguistic ticky tackery you claim to decry. Even so, it matters not at all in the real world because there will be a new release next month and the month after that and the month after that ad utilitarian, and you're welcome to use it at any point when it's useful to you.

Re: Ask HN: Is Perl dead?

#113

Post by expeditious »

> Will Perl 6 be able to turn things around, or is it too late?

Community plays a large role here, I think.

The Perl community (both 5 and 6) overall has a practical can-do attitude. This attracts users.

Perl 5 seems to have more grumpy (though still helpful) users.

Perl 6 has Larry and lots of courteous, friendly, and helpful users. It's a community you want to be a part of.

The Python community has a "no, you're wrong -- that's not Pythonic" feel to it which I think turns a lot of users off to Python.

So, I think Perl 6 does have a chance. Personally, I'd probably be more on-board with Perl 6 if it didn't look so darn complex.

Re: Ask HN: Is Perl dead?

#114

Post by philwelch »

chromatic wrote: post #112
philwelch wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did say, "I think most of us recognize that you can continue maintaining and updating software after it's done/finished/released." Whether a software project is release-quality or not is a rather basic concept to everyone else. It can be intellectually tempting to try and deconstruct these basic concepts, but more often than not it's an exercise in evasion rather than illumination. Perl 6 (or Perl 6.0.0 for the ped…

It can be intellectually tempting to try and deconstruct these basic concepts.... I'd like to see a unified theory of version numbers while you're at it. It'd be nice to account for Ubuntu, OpenBSD, Mplayer, Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, the Linux kernel, and TeX at minimum. After that, care to decipher what "beta" or "alpha" or "pre-release" means? If the Perl 6 community is more interested in using linguistic evasio…

I'd take your argument at all seriously if it were more honest, say either "I don't believe any implementation of Perl 6 will ever meet the 6.0.0 spec" or "It shouldn't have taken ten years to release Rakudo Star." Those are debatable positions.

Actually, I clarified what I meant in a previous post, when I characterized Perl 6 implementations as "incomplete implementation[s] of a draft specification". I didn't say it didn't exist, just that it exists in a non-final, pre-released state. Some people call them betas, some people call them release candidates, some people call them pre-release, and you try to cleverly evade the fact that every Perl 6 implementation is an incomplete implementation of a draft spec, but a rose by any other name and so forth.

I actually expect that some Perl 6 implementation will meet a finished 6.0.0 spec within the next 5 years. But none does currently. Which is a roundabout way of saying "it's not done yet", which is apparently doubleplusungood to state so directly.

I got into this trying to say good things about Perl. I guess you've shown me the error of my ways. If I'm going to have everything I say about Perl on Hacker News trolled by defensive Perl fanbois, I might as well trot out the old "explosion in an ASCII factory" joke again.

Edit: The problem is, you're seeing criticism where there was really none there. All I made was a statement of fact--Perl 6 isn't done yet. I've even clarified what I meant by "not done yet"--the spec is draft and the implementations are incomplete even against that spec. I think that's a reasonable definition of "not done yet", don't you? I never said anything about how long it's taking or whether implementation and spec will ever meet, you just projected those criticisms onto me because you're defensive about the issue. That's bad faith. Fuck, man, I even said Perl 6 would be done in the near future! How the hell do you get from that to projecting "I don't believe any implementation of Perl 6 will ever meet the 6.0.0 spec" onto me? Are you even reading my comments or am I talking to myself here?

Re: Ask HN: Is Perl dead?

#115

Post by c00p3r »

The most widely used spam filter was written in Perl - http://spamassassin.apache.org/

Spend a couple of minutes thinking about why on in Java or C++ (the answer is - tons of modules it uses).

Now try harder question - why not in Ruby or Python? ^_^

The world is the way it is, because it got that way. ^_^

Re: Ask HN: Is Perl dead?

#116

Post by Goladus »

leif wrote: post #88
Goladus wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, what ways you found python restrictive?

The whole language is all One Way To Do It-ified. It's fine, there's nothing wrong with it, I just always feel a lot more like I'm part of a creative process when I'm working with perl, like it's this magic goop I can mush around and throw at anything and it'll do everything I can think of. With python, it feels more like I'm trying to fit my program into the python world, which is very nice and square and proper and…

Ok, I was sort of hoping for a more concrete example. Do you mean like not being able to use 'unless' constructs? Not having regular expression operators? Not being able to reference default variables like $_? What is an example of doing it "the other way"?

I can usually find several different ways to do anything in Python, too. In fact I find this is true even for trivial things. For example, here are 4 ways to parse /etc/passwd and return a list of objects such that you can reference each value by the field name, for example:

    >>> passwd_data('/etc/passwd')[5]['shell']
    '/bin/bash'
4 ways: http://pastebin.com/wPa5q7Mc

Re: Ask HN: Is Perl dead?

#117

Post by rjbond3rd »

philwelch wrote: post #114
chromatic wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be intellectually tempting to try and deconstruct these basic concepts.... I'd like to see a unified theory of version numbers while you're at it. It'd be nice to account for Ubuntu, OpenBSD, Mplayer, Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, the Linux kernel, and TeX at minimum. After that, care to decipher what "beta" or "alpha" or "pre-release" means? If the Perl 6 community is more interested in using linguistic evasio…

I'd take your argument at all seriously if it were more honest, say either "I don't believe any implementation of Perl 6 will ever meet the 6.0.0 spec" or "It shouldn't have taken ten years to release Rakudo Star." Those are debatable positions. Actually, I clarified what I meant in a previous post, when I characterized Perl 6 implementations as "incomplete implementation[s] of a draft specification". I didn't say it…

Hi Phil, don't feel bad, amigo. The problem is that the good Perl 6 people are putting in long hours making something really awesome, and they are doing it only for fun, the challenge, the love of programming, and because it's great to build something beautiful and useful for oneself, and for the world.

Meanwhile, over in non-Perl-world, other people are (sometimes innocently, sometimes idly, sometimes maliciously) perpetuating these idiotic toxic "perl is X" memes which just poison the ecosystem for rational argument (in my opinion).

So you stepped into a minefield with good intentions, my thoughtful friend. But if I were on the Perl 6 team, I would be so frustrated by others out there who have this perverse obsession with what other people are doing, what other people are using, what other people are building.

It's not healthy, but regretably, it's also often very mean-spirited and has all the social utility of gambling on a cock fight.

I love what Perl has become, what the Perl community is, what the Perl 6 people are building, the UNIX-y culture, the spirit of adventure. It's really cool, and for those who don't get it, and don't want to, just move on (not you Phil).

Re: Ask HN: Is Perl dead?

#118

Post by chromatic »

philwelch wrote: post #114
chromatic wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be intellectually tempting to try and deconstruct these basic concepts.... I'd like to see a unified theory of version numbers while you're at it. It'd be nice to account for Ubuntu, OpenBSD, Mplayer, Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, the Linux kernel, and TeX at minimum. After that, care to decipher what "beta" or "alpha" or "pre-release" means? If the Perl 6 community is more interested in using linguistic evasio…

I'd take your argument at all seriously if it were more honest, say either "I don't believe any implementation of Perl 6 will ever meet the 6.0.0 spec" or "It shouldn't have taken ten years to release Rakudo Star." Those are debatable positions. Actually, I clarified what I meant in a previous post, when I characterized Perl 6 implementations as "incomplete implementation[s] of a draft specification". I didn't say it…

... you try to cleverly evade the fact that every Perl 6 implementation is an incomplete implementation of a draft spec.

Nonsense; even the release announcements say that directly.

All I made was a statement of fact--Perl 6 isn't done yet.

I wouldn't have objected if you'd written that. Characterizing software we've released on schedule for almost three years running as something thrown out in the world incomplete, ahead of an "official" release (whatever "official" means) is, I believe, incorrect and unhelpful.

Re: Ask HN: Is Perl dead?

#119

Post by phaylon »

someone_here wrote: post #10

I love perl, and I don't want to see it be dead, but there aren't enough libraries relating to my interests (games).

There's the Ogre bindings, but they are unfortunately incomplete. I think the problem here is that of critical mass. For real nice game development, you don't simply want OpenGL or even an engine like Ogre. You want to extend the engine to include physics and collision detection.

So, there would need to be either a large enough crowd able to maintain the bindings for the engines and their extensions, or we need a more generic approach to C++ foreign library access. Since there are people working on better C and C++ FFI's,

I'm hoping for the latter. But that's probably mostly because I'm no good at C++, and such a layer would be my only way to use external libraries without available bindings.

Post reply on HN