Is Perl 6 Being Renamed? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#421

Post by chromatic » Mon, Sep 02, 2019, 4:00 PM UTC

petre wrote: post #419

daotoad wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me clear that up for you, if you are still in doubt. Perl5 had a period of slow releases in the 2000s, this changed in 2010 with the release of version 5.12. Since then, Perl 5 has been on a yearly release cycle. The current release is version 5.30.0. When it became clear Perl6 wasn't coming any time soon, some people left Perl. Others knuckled down and wrote some great code that made Perl5 into a much better lan…

Perl 5 post 5.12 is nice but people like rurban an mlehmann claim p5p are screwing it up and breaking backwords compatibility for no good reason. These two individuals are quite knowledgeable programmers, so I'm inclined to agree with them. Both have created their own fork of Perl 5. Perl 6 is quite nice as a language but the implementation is slow and it has too litlle lib support. Also not great for scripting becau…

These two individuals are quite knowledgeable programmers, so I'm inclined to agree with them.

They're both extremely knowledgeable, but neither of them can work with other people, so their forks seem motivated by the desire to do what they want without question, rather than any purely technical concerns.

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#422

Post by petre » Mon, Sep 02, 2019, 6:47 PM UTC

chromatic wrote: post #421

petre wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perl 5 post 5.12 is nice but people like rurban an mlehmann claim p5p are screwing it up and breaking backwords compatibility for no good reason. These two individuals are quite knowledgeable programmers, so I'm inclined to agree with them. Both have created their own fork of Perl 5. Perl 6 is quite nice as a language but the implementation is slow and it has too litlle lib support. Also not great for scripting becau…

These two individuals are quite knowledgeable programmers, so I'm inclined to agree with them. They're both extremely knowledgeable, but neither of them can work with other people, so their forks seem motivated by the desire to do what they want without question, rather than any purely technical concerns.

I'd like at least rurban's fork to succeed. The other one is less ambitious and probably more pragmatic as in Perl 5.22 LTS. It's nice but also quite mundane, which is exactly what you'd want in a production environment. Cperl /perl11 OTOH is very ambitious with innovation happening. I will benchmark it against 5.30 at least for the sake of science and validating its author's claims.

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#423

Post by mannykannot » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 3:33 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #407

mannykannot wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implementation is not the issue; it is the awkward and fussy syntax. It is not a show-stopper -- I coped with it for a while -- but there are better alternatives.

The happy-path syntax is pretty straightforward. I wonder if you're under the impression like some that you need to use the arrow syntax or prefixing dollar for every reference, and not just the first? That's not the case. e.g. my @a = ( { first=>1, second=>"b", another_ref=>["y"] }, { first=>1, second=>"b", another_ref=>["z"] }, ); say $a[0]{first}; # Outputs 1 say $a[1]{another_ref}[0]; # Outputs z my $a2 = \@a; #…

I rest my case (it is a personal preference, anyway.)

Re: Is Perl 6 Being Renamed?

#424

Post by kbenson » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:16 PM UTC

mannykannot wrote: post #423

kbenson wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The happy-path syntax is pretty straightforward. I wonder if you're under the impression like some that you need to use the arrow syntax or prefixing dollar for every reference, and not just the first? That's not the case. e.g. my @a = ( { first=>1, second=>"b", another_ref=>["y"] }, { first=>1, second=>"b", another_ref=>["z"] }, ); say $a[0]{first}; # Outputs 1 say $a[1]{another_ref}[0]; # Outputs z my $a2 = \@a; #…

I rest my case (it is a personal preference, anyway.)

Fair enough. I did go a little overboard in the name of completeness. IT just boils down to actually understanding what a reference is in Perl (which is something that needs to be done for anything non-amateur), and then realizing there's one -> or not depending on if it's a reference (and doing the wrong thing will fail, not do weird stuff).

Personally, I like that it forces you to be aware that this data structure is likely in use somewhere else as well, and your changes may not be local (which is true of deeper levels regardless).