4 ms·
That's disingenuous and doesn't clear up anything. Better: Perl 5 Version 16.
by smosher 15y ago
That's disingenuous and doesn't clear up anything. Better: Perl 5 Version 16.
- sigzero 15y agoNah, you could just do a release number and it could just be Perl. Perl 2011.6.27. No biggie. And no, I don't advocate it either.
- msbarnett 15y agoI'm having trouble seeing how any change to something as completely arbitrary as version number schemes could be described as "disingenuous". How would the Perl community be attempting to "deceive people via a false impression of honesty" by dropping the long-since-atrophied major version number? What possible point of honesty is served by gluing that 5 to the language in perpetuity, just to continue waiting for Godot to show up?
- smosher 15y agoWhat people don't realize is that Perl means something. (And it doesn't mean specifically Perl 5.) I'd wager nobody advocating silly name changes (for either 5 or 6) had been writing Perl 10 years ago. In short: it's a marketing lie, and a poor one at that. For the sake of (spiteful) example I submit Perl 4 should be now known as Perl, and Perl 5 should deal with succession syndrome. Oh but Perl 6 is disruptive and confusing because it's so different you might complain, adding that 5 wasn't so different from 4. You wouldn't have dealt with the frustratingly subtle differences between Perl 4 and Perl 5 then. Or reams of Perl 5 documentation written as Perl 4 code with errata.