6 ms·
> Larry has now agreed with the change and Perl 6 will be renamed to "raku" and Perl 5, which has regular, major releases every year, will now be able to simply
by jolmg 7y ago
> Larry has now agreed with the change and Perl 6 will be renamed to "raku" and Perl 5, which has regular, major releases every year, will now be able to simply be "Perl" and be free to continue on its own way.
I hope that doesn't mean that when Perl needs a major number version change again, they'll chose 6. It would be pretty confusing to have 2 Perl 6.
- sigzero 7y agoThey'll probably skip to 7.
- dwaltrip 7y agoThat is probably the best solution, but at the same time it is such a hilarious thing.
- KSS42 7y agoWhy not Perl 10 or Perl X?
- rurban 7y agono, it's called cperl now. perl5 didn't see not much improvements for the last 20 years, the development happens only in cperl, which is the perl5 successor.
- ether_at_cpan 7y agobwahahahahaha
- b2gills 7y agoI think it would be a better idea to make the minor number be the major number. So skip to 32.
- joshlemer 7y agoIt's not uncommon to leap frog versions in such cases. PHP went from 5 to 7, for instance.
- diag 7y agoBut that's because PHP6 was dumped after being in development for a while.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- SwellJoe 7y agoThis is not entirely unlike that. Somewhere along the way, everybody realized Perl 6 was not the path forward from Perl 5, and so Perl 6 never really took the place of Perl 5, just like PHP6 never took the place of PHP 5. It looks like a pretty similar scenario, if you squint, I think. It makes little difference for Perl that this experiment in a next generation version of the language is still alive and going its own way. The result is the same...people kept moving forward with version 5, and if it needs a new version, it can't use version 6 because 6 was already used for that other experiment (that failed to take the place of Perl 5).
- chubot 7y agoYeah there was also no ecmascript 4, it went from es3 to 5 because 4 was abandoned as too complex.
- cpeterso 7y agoAnd Microsoft skipped DirectX 4.0: "after DirectX 3 was released, Microsoft began developing versions 4 and 5 at the same time. Version 4 was to be a shorter-term release with small features, whereas version 5 would be a more substantial release. The lack of interest from game developers in the features stated for DirectX 4 resulted in it being shelved, and the corpus of documents that already distinguished the two new versions resulted in Microsoft choosing to not re-use version 4 to describe features intended for version 5." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX#Version_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX#Version_history
- ether_at_cpan 7y agoFor those that can remember back that far, MacOS also jumped from 5 to 7. (7 was the first version that supported running multiple applications at once.. not counting the MultiFinder hack that came before it by a few years.)
- ttkciar 7y agoSince the language-previously-known-as-Perl6 will be known as Raku, there shouldn't be any conflict with Perl v6
- TheCoreh 7y agoEven if file names/packages don't clash, there's still a conflict when it comes to documentation, articles, blog posts, books, stack overflow questions and other documents that might or might not be updated.
- lilSebastian 7y agoThat would only further confusion
- Grinnz 7y agoI can say that at least currently, there is no appetite for Perl attempting to "reclaim" the Perl 6 version in the foreseeable future. It would be a disaster in both community relations and marketing. It will either be Perl 7 or Perl 34+.
- irrational 7y agoPerl 2019
- lilSebastian 7y agoThis one goes to 11 http://perl11.org/ http://perl11.org/
- rurban 7y agoAnd we'll keep that name and idea. 5 + 6 = 11, as it should have been
- b2gills 7y agoThis has the benefit of showing that Perl gets a new version released every year. I have previously stated that I would like it to be an alias of sorts. use v5.30; use v2019; Basically have both of those lines do the same thing. --- Perhaps even something like: use Perl v2019; (I actually considered posting a module that would make that work.)
- cjohansson 7y agoMaybe it’s better to find a new name for the next Perl 5 language version. It would simplify internet searches. It should be clearly distinct from Raku though.. Angular is in a similar mess to Perl, very hard to find decent information on web crawlers
- StevePerkins 7y agoPerl 5 was released in 1994. At this point, the "5" isn't really a version number anymore. It's just part of the name. If you did a "major version bump" from here, you'd probably have to bring the "5" along for the ride. Like Java version 2, where you had J2EE version <X> for years. In reality, there probably never will be another major version bump of Perl 5, in the marketing sense. The minor version number is really the major version number now.
- WorldMaker 7y agoWhich in turn suggests the Java (and others') solution of dropping the 5 and making the minor version the new major version. Look out for Perl 31.0 soon.
- spider-mario 7y agoJava even got rid of two numbers: J2EE 1.4 -> Java EE 5 Both “2” and “1.”.
- erikpukinskis 7y agoIn communist Russia, minor version always have breaking change
- dottrap 7y agoAnd as another example, Mac OS X (10), which debuted in 2000, has had every subsequent version continued to be named 10.X. Just this week, macOS 10.15 Catalina was released. Funny that the name Mac OS X went to OS X and then (back) to macOS, but the 10.X name persists.
- jandrese 7y agoThat would be an issue, but I don't think there is an appetite for a new major version of Perl at this point. To avoid confusion they would probably break the version convention entirely and name it with the year instead. So instead of Perl6 it would be Perl'19.
- yesbabyyes 7y agoI think it's likely they will skip the 5, and continue with version 32, or whatever minor they're up to now.
- wvenable 7y agoA similar sort of situation happened with PHP which is why there is no PHP 6 -- it jumped straight from PHP 5 to 7.
- RussianCow 7y agoAnd same with ECMAScript 3 to 5.
- WorldMaker 7y agoThere was an ECMAScript 4, it just wasn't adopted by browsers. (It was semi-adopted for ActionScript 3.)
- girvo 7y agoI thought the relationship went the other way, that AS 3 was going to be standardised as ECMAScript 4? Not that it matters, I’m likely remembering incorrectly!
- WorldMaker 7y agoStandards are a two-way street, and we're probably both right from different points of view. (Especially, because AS 2 also had a number of the features proposed for ES 4, so even if AS 3 was "solely" inspired to be an implementation of the ES 4 standard, ES 4 itself took inspiration from AS 2.)
- mhd 7y agoDitch the major version. As the current one is 5.30, the next one will be Perl 31, the next stable is Perl 32.
- sdenton4 7y agoThere's even a good mathematical justification for going from 5->32; just say that previously the versioning was in log_2 scale...
- FillardMillmore 7y agoWell, PHP jumped from 5 to 7 (without there truly ever being a 6) so I think Perl could do the same with no major downside.