I'm sorry but Perl 6 isnt relevant IMO. It took too long. I was a Perl developer at etoys.com in 2000 and BBC in 2001. I wrote OneMusic for Radio1 and even convinced the BBCs uptight ops team to run it with modperl so it could handle the high traffic it did. I also created the job search engine WorkZoo in modperl, one of Time Magazines top 50 sites of 2005 and Indeed's main competitor at the time. Perl6 was promised.…
Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?
61–70 of 424 posts
Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?
#62To my mind, the blockers for Perl 6 adoption in order of importance have been: 1. The name, saddling it with the legacy of Perl. (I say this as someone who really liked working with Perl back in the waning years of the old millennium, and believes that Perl was visionary in pointing the way to the state of modern programming... but also that it had some limitations that have only become more glaring over the years.)…
Bad example: Java actually has many VMs available for it: Oracle, OpenJDK, Zing, and IBM come to mind. (EDIT: And "Dalvik", for all the Android fans). I'm unsure if Java has multiple compilers, but its quite possible.
Python has CPython 2.0, CPython 3.0, and Jython at least. Probably a few others.
When Perl 5 was huge, there were multiple VMs and interpreters: IronPerl comes to mind as a Windows implementation back in the day that had different quirks than the canonical Perl interpreter.
Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
> performance prevents it being taken seriously in production. Performance is a big one. Not focusing on performance is like a strategic mistake for a programming language these days.
That is exactly what the main architect of the compiler has been working on for the past couple of years. Performance has been enhanced by a few factors since it was released in 2015. For a lots of things the next stable release (as soon as the latest round of optimization have been merged) will be on par with perl5 / ruby / python ... The main slow thing remaining is Grammars which if I understand correctly are not…
Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?
#64I think the name Camelia or Raku is fine, no need to argue over it forever. During this renaissance period of computer languages in history, it will be nice to get this out and iterate. Given there are plethora of choices today like go, rust, Nim, elm, elixir, Scala, julia, crystal, F#, D etc. trying for developer mindshare which is a limited resource speed is of essence. Indeed with parrot VM besides perl 6 develope…
parrot (as a multi language vm) has been dead for a long time, the GraalVM is probably the current best bet for a polyglot platform.
Hopefully someone pick up Moar with Rakudo and make it multi-lingual. Given Oracle involvement in GraalVM, it will always be a risk for open source development.
Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?
#65I'm sorry but Perl 6 isnt relevant IMO. It took too long. I was a Perl developer at etoys.com in 2000 and BBC in 2001. I wrote OneMusic for Radio1 and even convinced the BBCs uptight ops team to run it with modperl so it could handle the high traffic it did. I also created the job search engine WorkZoo in modperl, one of Time Magazines top 50 sites of 2005 and Indeed's main competitor at the time. Perl6 was promised.…
Okay, but is it a good, useful programming language? In some ways, the long development timeline suggests a slower, more stable way of doing language changes that appeals a lot to me.
Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps something onomatopoeic like "$#_@;\>&%}`[*~!^)"
As a non-perl programmer, the mnemonic descriptions in the perlvar manpage crack me up. They probably are useful and make sense to perl programmers, but from the outside, they look like parody.
Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
What good reason is that?
Off the top of my head: 1. CPAN was great 20 years ago, but it's a joke compared to modern dependency management systems. 2. Functions don't have explicit parameters, and still shift off of @_. (This can be kind of a catch-all for all the "things that are useful for scripts, but suck for programming in the large" design decisions in Perl 5, because I honestly don't remember all of them at this point.)
To this day, I've seen package management systems for many languages, and none I've seen has been as good as CPAN in terms of
(1) Consistent place for distribution + documentation (cpan.org/metacpan.org)
(2) Automated testing on a wide variety of platform and configuration (cpantesters.org)
(3) CPAN has as standard for declaring dependencies in packages, but a newer "cpanfile" may be more akin go "modern" dependency management. Perl has also had a way of 'use Package $version' right in the source code for ages.
(4) the command "cpanm Package::Name" (or even the older "cpan Package::Name") almost always results in figuring out whatever distribution needs to be installed, even if the distribution is named differently from the package name.
Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?
#68To my mind, the blockers for Perl 6 adoption in order of importance have been: 1. The name, saddling it with the legacy of Perl. (I say this as someone who really liked working with Perl back in the waning years of the old millennium, and believes that Perl was visionary in pointing the way to the state of modern programming... but also that it had some limitations that have only become more glaring over the years.)…
> but also that it had some limitations that have only become more glaring over the years. I don't have any real experience with Perl, so could you maybe expand a little? I'm curious about what you think the limitations are.
There's a kind of elegant flexibility to that, but it also makes it really hard to program reliably in the large, to build useful tooling, or even to glance at a function and know what you should pass it.
Beyond that, classic Perl was full of things that make it quick to write small programs (as CGI scripts were at the time) without a lot of boilerplate, but which don't scale up.
(Perl 6 is very different, and has an almost comically flexible/powerful function signature system (https://docs.perl6.org/type/Signature). Whether or not you like Perl 6's stuff, it's nothing at all like Perl 5's.)
Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?
#69Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?
#70I am not a fan of Perl, but this feels tragic to me. Perl was so radically different. I remember being on Perlmonks way back in the day, and someone would post a question about why their code didn't work, and there would be dozens of people who could instantly, intuitively post a corrected version of the code, but then the poster would say "oh, shit, what was my code doing? and why does the correct code do something different?" and you'd be lucky if there was a single person (cough chromatic) who could explain it. And none of the Perl fans cared, because Perl made them extremely powerful and productive, and they could (almost always) confidently produce a line of Perl code that did what they wanted. The analogy to natural language carried further into practice than Larry Wall could have dreamed. Nobody worries that the difficulty of resolving linguistic conundrums impairs their ability to have a conversation, and the Perl ninjas in my company enjoyed a very close and chatty relationship with the systems they worked on.
I'm the opposite kind of person, who got sick to his stomach looking at a line of code like !#$foo->%_[] (note: not real Perl) not knowing why it worked, even if I wrote it and knew that it would work. Even now, I have a nagging fear that if I executed "!#$foo->%_[] (note: not real Perl)" it would print "Yes it is! Ha ha. Love, Larry" to the console. I can't stand that, so Perl was never for me, but I still hope that against all odds this long, drawn-out apparent deathbed scene turns out to be the middle of a successful convalescence.