Perl 5.20.0 released

I've flagged your post for your last sentence before your parentheses. Here are the forum guidelines:

http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

"Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them."

As for trolling, at the moment I have four and a half times your karma and am engaging in civil discourse. Try to do the same.

You missed a serious implication with the fact that I'm writing about 'something else'. Which is that what I'm writing about has nothing to do with your language wars. Complaining that I would be wrong if I weren't writing about something else is similar to complaining that an obituary you have read shows extremely shoddy reporting, since a) you're alive, b) they got your birth date, gender, occupation, family history, professional history, and name wrong. They're clearly writing about someone else. Well, yes. I'm actually not part of your language war.

I actually haven't made a single claim about Perl, nor rehashed any arguments.

I explained what features I think a totally new language should have, and that the Perl community should start branding a totally new language as Perl, without starting out from Perl in any way. (As radically new as the iPad is to an Apple ][). It's my opinion.

Without any compatibility or sense of being Perl in any other sense, just like there is zero continuity or compatibility between an Apple ][ and an iPad.

Yes, I agree with you that Perl 6 is a different language in the same family. Perl 6 isn't a candidate for the language that I think should bear Perl branding in the future.

In summary, I like the Perl community and want it to work on some other language and call it Perl. I've given a high-level description of some of the features that I think such a language should have.

My main point is that you could brand anything you want as Perl. It doesn't have to still be Perl to be called Perl. If you disagree, that's fine, but you can't disagree with me for not writing about what you would like me to.

In case it was an honest mistake, I was referring to "So go troll on some subject you know". Your way of parsing my reference as referring to your second sentence is extremely bizarre, though possible if you were hasty.

If every variable is a reference to an object, that would be a different abstraction from Perl. "The modern language" refers to my hypothetical language which has nothing to do with Perl.

My entire post refers to something hypothetical, which is why you state that it was written about 'something else'.

We are not arguing, and I'm not making any claims about Perl.

I am talking about a hypothetical language in which writing any normal Perl fails with a syntax error.

I've flagged this as well, for your argumentative style, specifically that you write:

>despite multiple opportunities while being both called "troll" and down voted over that

This style of discussion is not normal here. Nobody but you has called me a troll, because that goes against our community guidelines. Please read the guidelines.

Until then you will not receive more replies from me. If you pay a bit of attention you will note that this community is much more civil than you may be used to from elsewhere.

("But why??" - I hope if you give it some thought you can appreciate the broader context that there is insight to be gained from discussion, as shown by congresses of minds from Athens to the Royal Society, from the Continental Congress to the National Academy of Sciences, all of which have shown that amazing things can be borne of civil discourse.

Whether you think you have anything to gain from anyone else's opinion is up to you to decide. Engaging in name-calling, cheap argumentative tricks (as repeated here), and willful misinterpreting is not up to you.

Please read the guidelines and contribute or ask honest questions, rather than attack. You are very welcome to express a differing opinion, of course, as long as it is done in civil terms.)

I think you really don't know what Perl 6 is, and are incorrectly inferring from some statements here that you "can run perl 5 code in perl 6" what that means, and what it's purpose is (library support, utilizing the massive amount of CPAN modules that already exist).

Perl 6 is not Perl 5, in the same way an iPad isn't still an Apple ][.

Other than that, the main problem I see is you taking a lot of opinion on what you think are good language features and transposing those desires onto "people" who decide what a modern language is. Many of those ideas are based in opinion, or in a language philosophy that is orthogonal to Perl's guiding philosophies, which are very strong and influenced it's design very much.

I think you're talking about other people's comments, not mine. I realize that you might be used to talking with those people, but it doesn't really have much to do with what I write. My statements have more or less nothing to do with Perl. (Please let that sink in.)

As far as my "understanding" of Perl 6. According to

http://perl6.org/compilers/std-viv

"The Perl 6 standard grammar is written in Perl 6, and specifies how a Perl 6 program is parsed. The source code can be found on github in the perl6/std project in the file STD.pm6."

That file is here:

https://github.com/perl6/std/blob/master/STD.pm6

Are you saying this is not written in Perl 6?

This is what informs my impression of what Perl 6 is.

It includes lines like this:

  token longname {
       {} [ >  ]*
  }

and

  :my $*QSIGIL ::= '';

and

  token comment:sym {
      '#' 
       ))>
          * \h* [ '#' | $$ ] >   # extra stuff on line after closer?
      >
       
  }

and

  token pod_comment {
      ^^ \h* '=' ?
      [
      | 'begin' \h+  ::
          [
          || .*? "\n" [ :r \h* '=' ? 'end' \h+ $ » \N* ]
          || .Str eq 'END'}> .*
          || { my $id = $.Str; self.panic("=begin $id without matching =end $id"); }
          ]
      | 'begin' » :: \h* [ $$ || '#' ||  \N* ]
          [ .*? "\n" \h* '=' ? 'end' » \N* || { self.panic("=begin without matching =end"); } ]
          
      | 'for' » :: \h* [  || $$ || '#' ||  \N* ]
          [.*?  ^^ \h* $$ || .*]
      | :: 
          [   ]?
          [||\s||]
          \N*
      ]
  }

I've searched for $_ and get, for example:

  token old_rx_mods {
          
          (\w+) 
          {
              given $0.Str {
                  $_ ~~ /i/ and $¢.worryobs('/i',':i');
                  $_ ~~ /g/ and $¢.worryobs('/g',':g');
                  $_ ~~ /m/ and $¢.worryobs('/m','^^ and $$ anchors');
                  $_ ~~ /s/ and $¢.worryobs('/s','. or \N');
                  $_ ~~ /x/ and $¢.worryobs('/x','normal default whitespace');
                  $_ ~~ /c/ and $¢.worryobs('/c',':c or :p');
                  $_ ~~ /e/ and $¢.worryobs('/e','interpolated {...} or s{} = ... form');
                  $_ ~~ /r/ and $¢.worryobs('/c','.subst');
                  $_ ~~ /a/ and $¢.worryobs('/a','Unicode');
                  $_ ~~ /d/ and $¢.worryobs('/d','Unicode');
                  $_ ~~ /l/ and $¢.worryobs('/l','Unicode');
                  $_ ~~ /u/ and $¢.worryobs('/l','normal regex');
                  $_ ~~ /p/ and $¢.worryobs('/c','substr or /$=[...]  $=[...]');
                  $¢.obs('suffix regex modifiers','prefix adverbs');
              }
          }
      }

or

  my @t = grep { substr($_.Str,0,2) ne '::' }, @$t;

>Perl 6 is not Perl 5, in the same way an iPad isn't still an Apple ][.

It's true that "an iPad isn't still an Apple ][" but I specifically chose those two examples because they have nothing in common. Whether someone has ever used one wouldn't affect their ability to use the other in any way, they are in no sense in the same 'family'. Nothing in common but the brand.

Perl 5 and Perl 6 are clearly in a same general family.

Your final paragraph is extremely fair. Perhaps I should state that I don't know much about why other people don't/wouldn't choose Perl as the first language to do a dynamic web site in in 2018 if they need to pick some language up. It is fair to state that I'm just expressing my own opinion.