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
--Donald E. Knuth
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Name change (Score:1)
To be honest, I really think a part of all this isn't FUD.
Perl 6 is being talked about... inside the Perl community. You don't see articles by random people not involved in its development somehow.
As some of the comments state, I honestly think Perl 6 should really change its name to something like Perl++ or PerlNG (next-generation) and free up the name for regular Perl.
I'd rather see a Perl 6 which is basically Perl 5.12 but with some heavy optimizations done to add support for a built-in Moose-like syntax.
I guess this would be good marketing for both projects. And we would be able to sort of have an analogy between C/C++ and Perl/Perl++ (or NG).
Perl++ would have much cooler stuff than Perl, in the same way C++ has much cooler stuff than C. However, both languages are clearly distinct and both have their own places.
It doesn't matter how much we tell outsiders that Perl 5 is one language and Perl 6 is another: the sequential thought is too strong (specially when you have Java marketing which calls version 1.6 as Java 6, 1.5 as Java 5, and so on).
Reply to This
Re: (Score:1)
Oh ho ho ho, caaareful with that one.
Though I don’t disagree with the idea.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh well, maybe I should have phrased that as "in the same way C++ has more modern features than C".
But I believe you were still able to understand my point.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes I did. What I’m saying is that marketing-wise, you probably want to stay far away from making C ↔ C++ parallels… “Modern” doesn’t cut it either, clueful people consider C++ an abomination [yosefk.com]. You don’t want to go anywhere near that.