4 ms·

Perl 6 was to be the next version of Perl. That was the intent when the whole effort started in 2000. That it didn't turn out that way, has many causes. En

by lizmat 6y ago

Perl 6 *was* to be the next version of Perl. That was the intent when the whole effort started in 2000. That it didn't turn out that way, has many causes. Enough has been said about that already. But to say that it was a completely separate language from the beginning, is historically incorrect in my opinion.

wheresmycraisin 6y ago
I disagree. Perl 6 changed fundamental low level syntax and semantics in the language. The 4 -> 5 transition in contrast was mostly syntax compatible, and in fact Perl 4 scripts are our there in the wild running on the Perl 5 interpreter just fine. Yes, it should've been called "Larry's next crazy experiment language" from the start. The most that was ever promised about the 5->6 transition was that there'd be ways of using 5 modules in 6 (which more or less works for 'pure-perl' 5 modules, within reason).
- lizmat 6y ago
  Agree that it did change low level syntax. What was promised initially was that a "use v5" in a lexical scope, would switch to a Perl 5 compatible parser. This project was started, but became pre-empted by the Inline::Perl5 module, which now allows you to use 99.9% of CPAN's Perl 5 modules (even with XS components) seamlessly in Raku. And yes, that is stable enough to be used in production.
- raiph 6y ago
  Fwiw I agree with both you and Liz. As Larry put it the day he announced it:[1] > It is our belief that if Perl culture is designed right, Perl will be able to evolve into the language we need 20 years from now. It’s also our belief that only a radical rethinking of both the Perl language and its implementation can energize the community in the long run. > (which more or less works for 'pure-perl' 5 modules, within reason) Are you misunderstanding what has been achieved? Using the "Best First" view of replies to the 2008 PerlMonks question What defines "Pure Perl"?[2] > "Pure Perl" refers to not using the C-extensions ("XS") and thus, not requiring a working C compiler setup. Inline::Perl lets Raku code use Perl modules as if they were Raku modules. XS or pure perl.[3] Not all of course. Some make no sense whatsoever in Raku (eg source filters). Some don't yet work but could if someone cared to deal with issues that arise. But if you're thinking that Rakudo only imports pure perl modules for the above definition of "pure perl", please know that Rakudo is light years ahead of that due to niner's amazing work. And if you mean some other definition of "pure perl" it would help me if you shared it. :) [1] https://www.perl.com/pub/2000/10/23/soto2000.html/ https://www.perl.com/pub/2000/10/23/soto2000.html/ [2] https://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=709757 https://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=709757 [3] https://raku.land/cpan:NINE/Inline::Perl5 https://raku.land/cpan:NINE/Inline::Perl5

Perl 6 *was* to be the next version of Perl. That was the intent when the whole effort started in 2000. That it didn't turn out that way, has many causes. En

by lizmat 6y ago

wheresmycraisin 6y ago

I disagree. Perl 6 changed fundamental low level syntax and semantics in the language. The 4 -> 5 transition in contrast was mostly syntax compatible, and in fact Perl 4 scripts are our there in the wild running on the Perl 5 interpreter just fine. Yes, it should've been called "Larry's next crazy experiment language" from the start. The most that was ever promised about the 5->6 transition was that there'd be ways of using 5 modules in 6 (which more or less works for 'pure-perl' 5 modules, within reason).

lizmat 6y ago
Agree that it did change low level syntax. What was promised initially was that a "use v5" in a lexical scope, would switch to a Perl 5 compatible parser. This project was started, but became pre-empted by the Inline::Perl5 module, which now allows you to use 99.9% of CPAN's Perl 5 modules (even with XS components) seamlessly in Raku. And yes, that is stable enough to be used in production.
raiph 6y ago
Fwiw I agree with both you and Liz. As Larry put it the day he announced it:[1] > It is our belief that if Perl culture is designed right, Perl will be able to evolve into the language we need 20 years from now. It’s also our belief that only a radical rethinking of both the Perl language and its implementation can energize the community in the long run. > (which more or less works for 'pure-perl' 5 modules, within reason) Are you misunderstanding what has been achieved? Using the "Best First" view of replies to the 2008 PerlMonks question What defines "Pure Perl"?[2] > "Pure Perl" refers to not using the C-extensions ("XS") and thus, not requiring a working C compiler setup. Inline::Perl lets Raku code use Perl modules as if they were Raku modules. XS or pure perl.[3] Not all of course. Some make no sense whatsoever in Raku (eg source filters). Some don't yet work but could if someone cared to deal with issues that arise. But if you're thinking that Rakudo only imports pure perl modules for the above definition of "pure perl", please know that Rakudo is light years ahead of that due to niner's amazing work. And if you mean some other definition of "pure perl" it would help me if you shared it. :) [1] https://www.perl.com/pub/2000/10/23/soto2000.html/ https://www.perl.com/pub/2000/10/23/soto2000.html/ [2] https://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=709757 https://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=709757 [3] https://raku.land/cpan:NINE/Inline::Perl5 https://raku.land/cpan:NINE/Inline::Perl5