5 ms·
A point for non-Perl folks looking at this on HN: While the use of a minor version number might suggest to you that Perl 5.20 is just a bugfix/update from Perl
by cstross 12y ago
A point for non-Perl folks looking at this on HN: While the use of a minor version number might suggest to you that Perl 5.20 is just a bugfix/update from Perl 5.6, that's very much not the case -- in most other language cultures it'd be several major version numbers on and be seen as a vast improvement over the earlier release.
The problem for this is that the name "Perl 6" was reserved a long time ago for what has become essentially a different language -- bearing about as close a relationship to Perl 5.x as C++ bears to C. So Perl is stuck with minor version number increments, from 5.6 (which IMO should have been Perl 6) to 5.20 (which equally well might be called Perl 20).
- pre_action 12y ago`perl -v` even goes so far as to say "This is perl 5, version 20, subversion 0". The addition of "v5.20.0" immediately after doesn't sync up very well with that though.
- smacktoward 12y ago> which equally well might be called Perl 20 That was my thought, too -- they should just do what Java did and drop off the "major" version number altogether. In 2014 it confuses more people than it helps.
- cstross 12y agoI believe there is just one obstacle to doing that: Larry. (Perl isn't the product of a corporate culture: it's a labour of love. Unfortunately this can result in some quirky ego-related side effects.)
- kbenson 12y agoI don't think it's fair to lay all the blame for any current blockage on Larry. I think the same issues that apply with just using Perl 7 as the name of the next version apply to just using the secondary version number. It also ignores the validity of the underlying assumption of this line of reasoning, that Perl would be more popular and more used if only the version number was 7.3 or something else that suggested change. I think there's enough holes to be addressed in that argument that making changes based on it is really just flailing in the dark, twiddling bits hoping for a better outcome.
- cstross 12y agoIt's not that Perl would be more popular and used if only the version number changed -- it's that the not-obviously-iterating version number fools people who don't look closely at it into thinking the language is moribund. (This problem was a major topic of coffee stand discussion at YAPC::NA this July ...)
- kbenson 12y agoI have have a feeling it's been a major topic of discussion at quite a few YAPC::NA's that past few years. It was in at YAPC::NA in 2013. My question is, what people is it fooling? If the person is unfamiliar with Perl, 5.20 isn't going to mean anything to them, since they have no reference. If the person is familiar with Perl and remembers something about the version they used, 5.20 is different than any version number they remember, so denotes some change they may choose to look into. If the person is familiar with Perl and doesn't remember the version they used or hasn't heard from any other possible source there's been same major changes, then a major version number change may attract their attention, but will it do so any more than the numerous announcements about major changes with versions that are announced? I'm not certain, and even if it does, is catering to this small subset of people worth it? I'm even less certain. If the language is to grow, it needs new blood, not just to draw back expatriates. I think the name argument is just a red-herring drawing people away from action that could actually be of use (IMHO, virtually any other action).