3 ms·

A new language with the same brand has been tried. It's called perl6. I'm also not entirely sure what you intend by "changing everything but keep the name the

• logicallee 12y ago
  As you mention, the problem with perlt6 is that it is "still Perl", in the exact sense that an iPad ISN'T "still an Apple ][." The only thing the latter have in common is the name Apple. The reason you wouldn't use a new name is to show the community of people that you are the same group of people. No other reason.
  • kbenson 12y ago
    I think you really don't know what Perl 6 is, and are incorrectly inferring from some statements here that you "can run perl 5 code in perl 6" what that means, and what it's purpose is (library support, utilizing the massive amount of CPAN modules that already exist). Perl 6 is not Perl 5, in the same way an iPad isn't still an Apple ][. Other than that, the main problem I see is you taking a lot of opinion on what you think are good language features and transposing those desires onto "people" who decide what a modern language is. Many of those ideas are based in opinion, or in a language philosophy that is orthogonal to Perl's guiding philosophies, which are very strong and influenced it's design very much.
    • logicallee 12y ago
      I think you're talking about other people's comments, not mine. I realize that you might be used to talking with those people, but it doesn't really have much to do with what I write. My statements have more or less nothing to do with Perl. (Please let that sink in.) As far as my "understanding" of Perl 6. According to http://perl6.org/compilers/std-viv http://perl6.org/compilers/std-viv "The Perl 6 standard grammar is written in Perl 6, and specifies how a Perl 6 program is parsed. The source code can be found on github in the perl6/std project in the file STD.pm6." That file is here: https://github.com/perl6/std/blob/master/STD.pm6 https://github.com/perl6/std/blob/master/STD.pm6 Are you saying this is not written in Perl 6? This is what informs my impression of what Perl 6 is. It includes lines like this: token longname { <name> {} [ <?before ':' <[ a..z A..Z _ \< \[ \« ]>> <colonpair> ]* } and :my $*QSIGIL ::= ''; and token comment:sym<#(...)> { '#' <?opener> <.suppose <quibble($¢.cursor_fresh( %*LANG<Q> ))> <!before <[,;:]>* \h* [ '#' | $$ ] > # extra stuff on line after closer? > <.worry: "Embedded comment seems to be missing backtick"> <!> } and token pod_comment { ^^ \h* '=' <.unsp>? [ | 'begin' \h+ <identifier> :: [ || .*? "\n" [ :r \h* '=' <.unsp>? 'end' \h+ $<identifier> » \N* ] || <?{ $<identifier>.Str eq 'END'}> .* || { my $id = $<identifier>.Str; self.panic("=begin $id without matching =end $id"); } ] | 'begin' » :: \h* [ $$ || '#' || <.sorry: "Unrecognized token after =begin"> \N* ] [ .*? "\n" \h* '=' <.unsp>? 'end' » \N* || { self.panic("=begin without matching =end"); } ] | 'for' » :: \h* [ <identifier> || $$ || '#' || <.sorry: "Unrecognized token after =for"> \N* ] [.*? ^^ \h* $$ || .*] | :: [ <?before .*? ^^ '=cut' » > <.panic: "Obsolescent pod format, please use =begin/=end instead"> ]? [<alpha>||\s||<.sorry: "Illegal pod directive">] \N* ] } I've searched for $_ and get, for example: token old_rx_mods { <!after \s> (\w+) { given $0.Str { $_ ~~ /i/ and $¢.worryobs('/i',':i'); $_ ~~ /g/ and $¢.worryobs('/g',':g'); $_ ~~ /m/ and $¢.worryobs('/m','^^ and $$ anchors'); $_ ~~ /s/ and $¢.worryobs('/s','. or \N'); $_ ~~ /x/ and $¢.worryobs('/x','normal default whitespace'); $_ ~~ /c/ and $¢.worryobs('/c',':c or :p'); $_ ~~ /e/ and $¢.worryobs('/e','interpolated {...} or s{} = ... form'); $_ ~~ /r/ and $¢.worryobs('/c','.subst'); $_ ~~ /a/ and $¢.worryobs('/a','Unicode'); $_ ~~ /d/ and $¢.worryobs('/d','Unicode'); $_ ~~ /l/ and $¢.worryobs('/l','Unicode'); $_ ~~ /u/ and $¢.worryobs('/l','normal regex'); $_ ~~ /p/ and $¢.worryobs('/c','substr or /$<PREMATCH>=[...] <(...)> $<POSTMATCH>=[...]'); $¢.obs('suffix regex modifiers','prefix adverbs'); } } } or my @t = grep { substr($_.Str,0,2) ne '::' }, @$t; >Perl 6 is not Perl 5, in the same way an iPad isn't still an Apple ][. It's true that "an iPad isn't still an Apple ][" but I specifically chose those two examples because they have nothing in common. Whether someone has ever used one wouldn't affect their ability to use the other in any way, they are in no sense in the same 'family'. Nothing in common but the brand. Perl 5 and Perl 6 are clearly in a same general family. Your final paragraph is extremely fair. Perhaps I should state that I don't know much about why other people don't/wouldn't choose Perl as the first language to do a dynamic web site in in 2018 if they need to pick some language up. It is fair to state that I'm just expressing my own opinion.
      • kbenson 12y ago
        I think the problems with your argument boil down to a few thigs: 1) You seem to be making an argument for some future language. That it would drop many of the things the make Perl Perlish is presupposed as what "people" would want. It would keep the name, as you state, because it would be the same community of people. The community of people that would keep the Perl name are not the same "people" you refer to that after their complaints are fixed would result in a Perl that is not Perlish. 2) If you are just talking about some abstract future language not actually related to Perl, don't use the Perl name. All you are doing is getting people riled up because you are attributing views to them (as the actual Perl community) that they disagree with. Again, I think this can be attributed to you taking a more abstract approach to what you are saying, but choosing to use concrete names, such as Perl, and doing so in the comments of an article about a new Perl release. People here would likely engage you gladly if it was obvious it's just a thought experiment about some futuristic language with nothing to do with Perl, including the name (although there would be challenges as to what you believe are the best features for this new language). 3) You presuppose it's a solved question of what's "best" for specific language features. For example, longer more explicit keywords, very simple to explain, very easy to read by a someone who doesn't know it. These are all good things when you try to maximize learning by novices. One could argue that at the same time, they don't really even allow experts. We have domain languages because they allow us to be more concise and accurate in our definitions. This necessitates learning the domain language, but I think few would argue that the hassle outweighs the future benefit to chemists, physicists, lawyers, engineers and architects to learn the specifics of the domain languages and representations they've developed. As a simple example, look at Ten Hundred Words of Science[1]. I admit it's probably useful to get laymen to understand a topic in general, but is it always sufficient to explain the specifics of that topic in the precise way it requires? Should experts in the field converse with each other this way? Should new bodies of work attempt to use this in the future instead of the domain languages they have developed? It's important to see these for what they are, tools used to shift focus towards or away from specific attributes. It's all a matter of perspective and what the goal is. [1]: http://tenhundredwordsofscience.tumblr.com/ http://tenhundredwordsofscience.tumblr.com/
        • 12y ago