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
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
troll? FUD? Hidden Agenda? (Score:1)
Who are you, 'pozer' (you didn't fill out your profile), and on what authority can you say that chromatic (see: http://use.perl.org/~chromatic/ [perl.org], http://search.cpan.org/~chromatic/ [cpan.org], http://www.modernperlbooks.com/ [modernperlbooks.com]) is a "troll", "ignorant", or "closed minded". His agenda also seems to be rather un-hidden.
I'm sad that RGS doesn't want to be pumpking any longer, and I know that pumpking is a difficult task requiring intense commitment.
But, I'm also sad that new Perl users still have to be given a 20-year history lesson to understand that some extremely useful pragmas and other functionality can't be the default because some non-contributing users (who only use perl as a "bash on steroids" anyway) might have to look at code they wrote 15 years ago before upgrading their perl (even though they haven't upgraded in 5 years.) If the users who don't write new Perl code are given this much priority in the language's design, this sends a pretty clear message that Perl is not intended for writing new code.
And I still can't understand why users who don't want Perl to change are the slightest bit concerned about whether a new version changes. If you aren't ever going to upgrade, it won't affect you!
Those of us who have written Perl in the last 10 years won't have a problem with the sort of changes chromatic has been proposing -- and if we still have a mix of crufty old code in-house we know how to deal with that.
The alternative to updating old code is, of course, to rewrite everything in a different language. If Perl is not going to change, that sort of rewrite is going to keep happening and there won't be any point in shipping a new version.
Reply to This