Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
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

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Catalyst has some builtin PAR support. [cpan.org]

    Reading the recent 'perl is dying/dead' threads here [on use.perl] also makes me wonder about hiring.

    They're not dead/dying but sometimes they think life stops, unless/until Perl get the best OO model, easiest deployment, best libraries and so on, and so on. They're just so demanding to their selfs.

    • If we can't improve Perl beyond fixing bugs, why is there even a p5p? When did Perl become the sound of the wall I'm beating my head against?

      • by pnu (8946) on 2008.12.12 16:23 (#66449)

        I think we can/should/will (improve Perl 5), but meanwhile we must learn to live with the shortcomings it has. No language or environment is perfect. This wouldn't be a problem, unless clueless people start to believe the FUD arising from this self criticism.

        I really wouldn't like to distract the focus from Perl 6 since it will be a great step forward for the whole world of programming, but there are success stories written all the time with Perl 5. Not seeing this and appreciating it alienates unaware people and future audience of Perl 6.

        But I thought we agree on this, so maybe I didn't get your point? Sorry. ;-)

        • The existence of Perl 6 is no excuse not to improve Perl 5. The fact that you can declare a class in Perl 5 with the package keyword and subclass a parent with use base or pushing onto @ISA does not mean we can never add a little syntactic sugar to make that code clearer and more convenient.