4 ms·

I dunno, even for maintained ones I've seen far les breakage, whether now or decade ago. It always seemed like default choice for Perl was getting a warning thi

by ilyt 3y ago

I dunno, even for maintained ones I've seen far les breakage, whether now or decade ago. It always seemed like default choice for Perl was getting a warning this way of calling something is depreacated, while in Ruby/Python it was "well, we changed our mind on that API, fuck you and your code". The way Py2to3 migration was handled was also some abomination. Meanwhile if I need my Perl code to work like old Perl I just write use v5.10 in header...

formerly_proven 3y ago
Had a moment a few days ago with a certain distro not packaging latexmk. Turns out it's a one-file Perl script. It... just works. No dependencies, packaging, deploy process, automation, package hubs, no container with an entire OS, no private runtime, no binaries. Just half a meg of Perl. And it just works, and exactly like it did in the 90s. No fuzz, no bloat. We are completely lost these days when it comes to software.
- TylerE 3y ago
  Counter argument: It's apparently half a meg of source code to implement a basic build tool. Not impressed.
  - nequo 3y ago
    The file is 10,284 lines long. Less than half of it is actual code. The rest is comments or empty lines. $ cat =latexmk | wc -l 10284 $ cat =latexmk | grep -v '^ *#' | grep -v '^ *$' | wc -l 5982 $ > to implement a basic build tool This basic build tool comes with a man page that is 26.5 thousand words long. Not your typical basic build tool.
cesarb 3y ago
> The way Py2to3 migration was handled was also some abomination. Meanwhile if I need my Perl code to work like old Perl I just write use v5.10 in header... To be fair, the way the Perl 5 to Perl 6 migration was handled was worse. It got so bad that they ended up renaming Perl 6 to something else, after it had already been released under the Perl 6 name.
- ilyt 3y ago
  There was no migration, it was just unfortunately named language
  - theamk 3y ago
    Sure there was, everyone was talking about perl6 migration back in 2000's. The "unfortunately named language" appeared once it became clear once migration failed. Here is one of the earliest announcements: https://www.perl.com/pub/2000/07/perl6.html/ https://www.perl.com/pub/2000/07/perl6.html/ .. some quotes: > So the upward migration path from Perl 5 to Perl 6 will probably be to run your code through a translator. > Larry promised not to abandon Perl 5. The 5.6 maintenance track will continue as planned, and the 5.7 development track will eventually yield Perl 5.8, as planned. 5.8 will be the final release of Perl 5, but it will continue to be maintained and stable. perl is at 5.37 now... so much for "5.8 will be the final release" :) Also, this does sounds awfully like Python 2->3 migration.

by ilyt 3y ago

formerly_proven 3y ago

Had a moment a few days ago with a certain distro not packaging latexmk. Turns out it's a one-file Perl script. It... just works. No dependencies, packaging, deploy process, automation, package hubs, no container with an entire OS, no private runtime, no binaries. Just half a meg of Perl. And it just works, and exactly like it did in the 90s. No fuzz, no bloat. We are completely lost these days when it comes to software.

TylerE 3y ago
Counter argument: It's apparently half a meg of source code to implement a basic build tool. Not impressed.
- nequo 3y ago
  The file is 10,284 lines long. Less than half of it is actual code. The rest is comments or empty lines. $ cat =latexmk | wc -l 10284 $ cat =latexmk | grep -v '^ *#' | grep -v '^ *$' | wc -l 5982 $ > to implement a basic build tool This basic build tool comes with a man page that is 26.5 thousand words long. Not your typical basic build tool.

cesarb 3y ago

> The way Py2to3 migration was handled was also some abomination. Meanwhile if I need my Perl code to work like old Perl I just write use v5.10 in header... To be fair, the way the Perl 5 to Perl 6 migration was handled was worse. It got so bad that they ended up renaming Perl 6 to something else, after it had already been released under the Perl 6 name.

ilyt 3y ago
There was no migration, it was just unfortunately named language
- theamk 3y ago
  Sure there was, everyone was talking about perl6 migration back in 2000's. The "unfortunately named language" appeared once it became clear once migration failed. Here is one of the earliest announcements: https://www.perl.com/pub/2000/07/perl6.html/ https://www.perl.com/pub/2000/07/perl6.html/ .. some quotes: > So the upward migration path from Perl 5 to Perl 6 will probably be to run your code through a translator. > Larry promised not to abandon Perl 5. The 5.6 maintenance track will continue as planned, and the 5.7 development track will eventually yield Perl 5.8, as planned. 5.8 will be the final release of Perl 5, but it will continue to be maintained and stable. perl is at 5.37 now... so much for "5.8 will be the final release" :) Also, this does sounds awfully like Python 2->3 migration.