Live data from Hacker News

Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

blogs.perl.org

241–250 of 424 posts

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#241
post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feels like the big blocker is that it seems to only be useful if you insist on a language that is Perl-like but also modern, but most Perl programmers probably moved to other languages already and don't care about whether their language is Perl-like, and the remaining ones are probably mostly maintaining Perl 5 codebases that they don't want to rewrite. Ignoring the Perl angle, it's a language with a small ecosystem…

> if you insist on a language that is Perl-like but also modern Here's your perennial reminder that the word "modern" is a thought smell. > it's a language with a small ecosystem that doesn't seem to provide any groundbreaking advantage compared to existing languages I'd almost prefer this conception went uncorrected, because Perl6 is not just Ruby or Python in different clothes, and it's not just Perl5 with nicer ae…

> "modern" is a thought smell

Sometimes it's a thought smell, but sometimes it's shorthand for "has learned the lessons of recent history", which is indeed valuable.

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#242
post #26
post #12

I don't get all this "Perl 6 is a different language" nonsense. It was created by Larry Wall and retains all the characteristics of Perl 5 whilst adding a lot of great stuff from other languages. Sadly, performance prevents it being taken seriously in production.

> 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.

On one hand, you're totally right.

I've been writing perl for twenty years, and while I love its practical expressiveness (higher than any other language currently in use, as an objective measure), I've frequently wished it had better performance and lower memory footprint.

The go-to solution for that has been to profile one's code and rewrite the critical path in C, with which perl interfaces readily. It's the same story with python -- very expressive, but slow and fat (slower and more memory-hungry than perl, even), with easy C integration as the common solution. C integration works, though it's less than ideal.

On the other hand, you're being a bit uncharitable by assuming the MoarVM developers aren't focusing on performance.

They prioritized getting it working -first-, but have since paid more attention to improving its run-time performance. Their efforts have already made considerable impact, with more on its way.

I've benchmarked its performance a couple of times, and it's still too slow to interest me, but will keep an eye on it. At some point there may be an inflection point which makes it a compelling alternative to other languages.

Though perl is still my bread-and-butter, and I've written python for a living and liked it, I've become quite infatuated with D of late. It's essentially C with some straightforward extensions and improvements, which gives it roughly 3x to 4x as much practical expressive power than C (but only about 1/3 the expressiveness of perl), and excellent support for casual parallelism, while matching C for run-time performance and small memory footprint.

Before I wrote perl for a living, I wrote C for several years, and D has "clicked" with me in a way that other languages have not. Learning python and Go was rough, but I muscled my way through them. Learning D hasn't been like that. It's actually pleasant to learn, and I find myself thinking about it when I really should be focusing on other things.

One thing D doesn't have is a lot of jobs. Maybe it will someday, but I expect to write perl6 for a living before writing D for a living (and expect to be writing perl and python for a living for a while before that).

Anyway, my point is that the MoarVM developers are actively working to give perl6 better run-time performance, and it is way too early to discount perl6 on account of its current performance.

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#243
post #141

Until Perl6 is actually released, it doesn’t really matter what they call it. (yes, I know they have functional snapshot builds, but as long as there’s not a final "6.0" (or "1.0") release, expect most devs to steer clear of it. Few people (masochists, mostly) want to use an ‘experimental’ programming language for important work).

> Until Perl6 is actually released, it doesn’t really matter what they call it. > (yes, I know they have functional snapshot builds, but as long as there’s not a final "6.0" (or "1.0") release, expect most devs to steer clear of it. Few people (masochists, mostly) want to use an ‘experimental’ programming language for important work). The “1.0” for the Perl 6 spec (6.c, because reasons) was released in 2015; the stab…

Then it should have been called "1.0". Calling it "DEFINITELY NOT 1.0" while deciding that that is secret P6 code for "really means 1.0" is awfully bad marketing.

(More seriously, slow performance, missing features, bugs, etc. were part of the reason for not calling it "1.0", but I would agree that to be really successful, the language needs a release that is called 1.0 and acts like it.)

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#244

To 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.)…

This is a good list. The default user experience for Perl 6 needs to be dramatically improved. Developer ergonomics matter! Yes, when you run 'python' you get cpython, and Java is probably hotspot vm or openjdk or something (but Java is not a good example of developer ergonomics). Rust is one of the best examples here -- adoption is being driven by the ease-of-use of the entire toolchain, including the package manage…

perl6 has a REPL just like python if you just type perl6. There is a package manager called zef. It has some of the best and most human-readable compiler errors I have ever seen in a compiler. It has one of the simplest FFI to C I have seen to interface with the rest of the world. If there is anything perl6 got wrong, it wasn't ergonomics.

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The analogy to natural language carried further into practice than Larry Wall could have dreamed. Over the years I've seen this mantra repeated a million times but I've yet to have anyone actually explain what it means beyond a piece of marketing fluff. What actually is this analogy in concrete terms?

A lot of languages — in fact, a lot of software in general — is designed to make things easy for the computer/programmer: "This is how it works and you just have to adapt, deal with it." Larry Wall put a lot of effort into making Perl try to adapt to the way the user already thinks instead, including taking advantage of having studied linguistics to figure out how the "language" part of a computer language fits (or d…

I think there's a greater underlying dichotomy here that's relevant to your tailor-made suit analogy: the people who love Perl tend to be the people who are building and maintaining mostly only their own tooling and (usually small) codebases, and the people who don't love Perl tend to be the ones that are responsible for maintaining large piles of other people's code.

A language that's "tailor-made" for the individual is fantastic when you only have to deal with your own code. You get to write stuff that makes sense to you. It doesn't matter if it's unconventional or doesn't make sense to anyone else -- it fits the way that your brain works.

But when cooperating on larger projects with lots of other people involved, this backfires remarkably. You now need to understand the way that half a dozen or more other brains work.

As software development has gradually shifted away from the published efforts of lone hackers and towards the collaborative efforts of teams of specialized people, Perl's "TMTOWTDI" approach has made it a far more expensive language to develop software in than all of the alternatives.

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you insist on a language that is Perl-like but also modern Here's your perennial reminder that the word "modern" is a thought smell. > it's a language with a small ecosystem that doesn't seem to provide any groundbreaking advantage compared to existing languages I'd almost prefer this conception went uncorrected, because Perl6 is not just Ruby or Python in different clothes, and it's not just Perl5 with nicer ae…

> "modern" is a thought smell Sometimes it's a thought smell, but sometimes it's shorthand for "has learned the lessons of recent history", which is indeed valuable.

[deleted]

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#247
post #169

I've got to agree Raku is way better than Cameila. Although I understand why the female developer couple would want a female name. It just doesn't sound like a programming language and shorter the better (nothing beats Ruby).

Camelia is the name of the butterfly mascot, hence the suggestion to use it as the name of the language. rakudo, the language tool, basically translates as "way of the camel" playing on the use of the camel as Perl's O'Reilly book mascot. "Raku" or "raku", would basically be calling the language "camel" and the tool "way of the camel" which has a certain appeal as well. However, the camel has never been really direct…

Oh apologies I made an assumption there I probably shouldn’t have.

To me naming is was mostly how it rolls off the tounge so I’m not a fan of multi syllable words that aren’t super common.

I’m also not a fan of ‘clever’ words that have dual meaning, like tattoos it should mostly be an aesthetic thing.

But I’m not surprised when I hear communities responding to change poorly. Any large community has this problem and it’s best to ignore the rancour. Not everyone should have an opinion and there’s nothing that attracts more than a name. So it will come down to personal taste.

I’d 100% defer to the primary devs on this one.

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#248
post #155

I want to write some scripts that are _slightly_ too complicated for bash. Basically just implementing some simple scripts that have a couple options/args and I want to use another tool. How good would perl 5/6 be for this? If not perl, anything similar that's not python? I want to learn something new.

Yes, what Grinnz says. "Bash on steroids" is one of perl's strongest use-cases. It's why a lot of system administrators learned perl.

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#249
post #103
post #70

Routinely I see in numerous online discussions that people refuse to even consider Perl 6 because they hate Perl. Or there are younger people who think of Perl as "their grandfather's language" (in much the same way people in my generation view COBOL). I 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 quest…

As a Perl aficionado, thank you for this, it is rare that anyone who does not enjoy Perl will express a positive opinion for it.

I do not enjoy Perl, but I have a positive opinion of it :) I launched my career in the late 90s as a Perl/XS/CGI (later mod_perl) developer and have many fond memories of it. I also have seen enough cases of Perl codebase deterioration to acquire significant distaste for it as far as enterprise projects are concerned. I enjoy using it for one-liners and small scripts here and there because it's VI-like in terms of being ubiquitous. I just don't programming Perl in teams larger than 1. Makes sense?

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#250

To 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.)…

> 3. The insistence on branding sub-components of it and exposing that branding. Yes, it has a VM. Yes, it has a compiler. But why do people talk about ParrotVM and Rakudo as if they're different things? Java has a compiler and a VM, they're called "javac" and "jvm." This wifty "no, Perl 6 is the standard, the software you're running is Rakudo and Parrot" distinction is totally irrelevant to anyone actually wanting t…

    # copy stdin to stdout, except for lines starting with #
    while left_angle_right_angle:
        if dollar_underscore[0] =eq= "#":
            continue_next;
        }
        print dollar_underscore;
    }
Hilarious...
Post reply on HN