NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
--Larry Wall in eval.c from the perl source code
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Not to sound negative, but... (Score:1)
I haven't read all the docs by Wall and Conway, but from what I have read, none of it looks like the perl I know and love.
Why not give a wholly new name and make a clean break?
Re:Not to sound negative, but... (Score:3, Informative)
The Apocalypses and Exegeses can easily give that impression. But so can reading perldelta for any particular release of Perl 5. And the reason is the same: those documents are all about what is changing, and rarely mention what is staying the same (because then they'd be 10 times longer!)
But Perl 6 really is Perl. It feels like Perl to program in, and most of its syntax and semantics are identical to those of Perl 5.
It's like the old saying: if it looks like a Terminator, and it tracks like a Terminator, and it will-not-stop-till-you-are-DEAD like a Terminator, then it's a Terminator. The fact that it's now made of mimetic polyalloy rather than gears and levers and nuts and bolts doesn't affect its intrinsic Terminatorosity.
Perl 6 is still the same killer language you know and love. We're just making it smoother, faster, more uniform, and vastly more adaptable.
If you're interested in seeing just how similar Perl 6 is going to be to Perl 5 in most cases, check out
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Not to sound negative, but... (Score:1)
Good article. It eliminated my trepidation about perl6. Now that I have a new eye to the changes, I'll have to read the Apocalyse and Exegesis docs in earnest.
Thanks!
Re:Not to sound negative, but... (Score:1)