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

Why is Funding Perl Core Development So Difficult?

modernperlbooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 87 posts

Re: Why is Funding Perl Core Development So Difficult?

#11

Post by njl »

astrodust wrote: post #4

In part I think it's because Perl is done. It works. It's effective. Extending Perl beyond what Perl is makes Perl something else. Perl 6 is barely Perl in any classical sense. The "Swiss Army Chainsaw" was never intended to be Java or C#. Its weaknesses, a lack of formal typing, a small, simple set of core data structures, a terse and convoluted syntax, are actually its strengths. Just as C++ is not really C, and Ja…

The successor to Perl is Ruby. System administration used to mean Perl, now it means Ruby. Fast web development used to mean Perl, now it means Ruby or Python. The successor to Perl is Ruby.

Re: Why is Funding Perl Core Development So Difficult?

#12

Post by cageface »

dextorious wrote: post #6
bazquz wrote: post #3

Someone is going to say -- "perl ? Does any one use it ? I had to maintain a project in perl 6 years back and I absolutely hated it ..." Disregard him. He sucks candy. EDIT: The downvotes are acting a ( ) for all the candy suckers. Checkout their useless profiles, and memorize their silly nick's. ha ha !

Yeah, but if you get one of those responses to every post about your language/framework of choice, then maybe it's time to read the signs on the wall.

Let's be honest, Python and Ruby have eaten Perl's lunch. All it's got left to argue for it is CPAN. The first startup I worked for, in 1999, was built entirely on Perl. At the time it was a good choice. It isn't now.

Re: Why is Funding Perl Core Development So Difficult?

#13

Post by lawnchair_larry »

bazquz wrote: post #3

Someone is going to say -- "perl ? Does any one use it ? I had to maintain a project in perl 6 years back and I absolutely hated it ..." Disregard him. He sucks candy. EDIT: The downvotes are acting a ( ) for all the candy suckers. Checkout their useless profiles, and memorize their silly nick's. ha ha !

But it's true.

Re: Why is Funding Perl Core Development So Difficult?

#14

Post by bazquz »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #13
bazquz wrote: post #3

Someone is going to say -- "perl ? Does any one use it ? I had to maintain a project in perl 6 years back and I absolutely hated it ..." Disregard him. He sucks candy. EDIT: The downvotes are acting a ( ) for all the candy suckers. Checkout their useless profiles, and memorize their silly nick's. ha ha !

But it's true.

What's your favorite candy ?

Re: Why is Funding Perl Core Development So Difficult?

#15

Post by phaylon »

I hope somewhere in the future there will be a point where we can have discussions about things like this without having some people think they can just state "Perl is dead," "Python is the new Perl" or "Ruby is just better." It's fine if that's your opinion, more power to you. But that simply doesn't make it a fact.

The question of the value of technology is a very complicated one. And we'll never be able to work out the good and bad points of the specific dynamic languages, to cooperate and learn from each other, if all discussion gets reduced to trying to make the others look worse. A witty saying never proved anything. At least nothing valuable.

To me, in most cases the witty statements regarding languages (be it Perl 5/6, PHP, Java, or anything else) don't demonstrate insight or experience, but merely a lack of respect for other people's opinions. After all, "they" must recognize that every large enough PHP program is unmaintainable garbage, since "you" were able to recognize that. If they don't, they lack experience. If you can't even imagine that the other party might have a point, you're not trying to have a constructive discussion, but instead are in some kind of a fight for the prize of being right. The problem is, there is no prize. There is no right. Within this game, no-one wins.

To sum up: Less emotion, less absolutism, more technology.

Re: Why is Funding Perl Core Development So Difficult?

#16

Post by absconditus »

njl wrote: post #11
astrodust wrote: post #4

In part I think it's because Perl is done. It works. It's effective. Extending Perl beyond what Perl is makes Perl something else. Perl 6 is barely Perl in any classical sense. The "Swiss Army Chainsaw" was never intended to be Java or C#. Its weaknesses, a lack of formal typing, a small, simple set of core data structures, a terse and convoluted syntax, are actually its strengths. Just as C++ is not really C, and Ja…

The successor to Perl is Ruby. System administration used to mean Perl, now it means Ruby. Fast web development used to mean Perl, now it means Ruby or Python. The successor to Perl is Ruby.

I think that you are vastly overestimating Ruby's popularity outside of the HN crowd.

Re: Why is Funding Perl Core Development So Difficult?

#17

Post by absconditus »

cageface wrote: post #12
dextorious wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but if you get one of those responses to every post about your language/framework of choice, then maybe it's time to read the signs on the wall.

Let's be honest, Python and Ruby have eaten Perl's lunch. All it's got left to argue for it is CPAN. The first startup I worked for, in 1999, was built entirely on Perl. At the time it was a good choice. It isn't now.

Outside of the start-up world Perl is still heavily used and Ruby is probably not quite as popular as you believe.

Re: Why is Funding Perl Core Development So Difficult?

#18

Post by danssig »

phaylon wrote: post #15

I hope somewhere in the future there will be a point where we can have discussions about things like this without having some people think they can just state "Perl is dead," "Python is the new Perl" or "Ruby is just better." It's fine if that's your opinion, more power to you. But that simply doesn't make it a fact. The question of the value of technology is a very complicated one. And we'll never be able to work ou…

Substitute COBOL for Perl in your post and read it again. Do you still agree?

Re: Why is Funding Perl Core Development So Difficult?

#19

Post by [deleted] »

njl wrote: post #11
astrodust wrote: post #4

In part I think it's because Perl is done. It works. It's effective. Extending Perl beyond what Perl is makes Perl something else. Perl 6 is barely Perl in any classical sense. The "Swiss Army Chainsaw" was never intended to be Java or C#. Its weaknesses, a lack of formal typing, a small, simple set of core data structures, a terse and convoluted syntax, are actually its strengths. Just as C++ is not really C, and Ja…

The successor to Perl is Ruby. System administration used to mean Perl, now it means Ruby. Fast web development used to mean Perl, now it means Ruby or Python. The successor to Perl is Ruby.

[deleted]

Re: Why is Funding Perl Core Development So Difficult?

#20

Post by phaylon »

danssig wrote: post #18
phaylon wrote: post #15

I hope somewhere in the future there will be a point where we can have discussions about things like this without having some people think they can just state "Perl is dead," "Python is the new Perl" or "Ruby is just better." It's fine if that's your opinion, more power to you. But that simply doesn't make it a fact. The question of the value of technology is a very complicated one. And we'll never be able to work ou…

Substitute COBOL for Perl in your post and read it again. Do you still agree?

Yes. I don't follow COBOL and can't judge it. If there is a modern COBOL, I certainly won't judge it by the COBOL that existed in the 90s.

To throw the question back: Do you think Lisp is useless because it's old, or do you think the Lisp of the 80s doesn't have that much to do with the Lisp of 2011, even if the syntax didn't change that much?

Post reply on HN