4 ms·
It's interesting how much negativity Perl 6 (or Perl, in general) generates, and how dismissive folks are of it's usefulness. The fact is that Perl is used extr
by SwellJoe 12y ago
It's interesting how much negativity Perl 6 (or Perl, in general) generates, and how dismissive folks are of it's usefulness. The fact is that Perl is used extremely widely in a huge variety of roles. New projects are being launched in Perl (DuckDuckGo is a relatively recent thing that has been very successful, but there are many others), and a lot of very smart people work in Perl, both 5 and 6.
If Perl isn't your bag, or Perl 6 is taking too long to be "finished" for you to want to use it, that's fine. There are hundreds of languages to choose from. I understand the frustration of longtime Perl developers; Perl 6 is the Perl developer vanguard seemingly turning their backs on "pragmatic" and running somewhat haphazardly toward the theoretical and (very far) forward looking (Perl 6 contains many more novel concepts than a lot of newer languages, such as Go).
Could it, should it, have been done differently? Incrementally, with real-world testing for each new feature? Probably. Hindsight is 20/20. Is it a victim of second system effect? Possibly, we won't know until it hits some reasonable levels of production; right now it's still quite academic. Hubris is one of the Perl virtues, and it may have led to "perfect is the enemy of the good" winning out on more decisions than it should have.
But, Perl 5 is a great language today, certainly a match for Python or Ruby for conciseness, performance, capability, etc. And a vastly better language than Perl 5 was 14 years ago. Perl lost the popular mindshare war..but, it still helps people build a lot of cool software in a lot of fields.
Regardless of whether you'll use Perl 6, I'd love it if people here at HN would actually take a look at the novel ideas contained therein, rather than focusing on the superficial "it's late and I don't like it". There are concepts in Perl 6 that could improve your favorite language, and might alter the way you think about solving problems. If only you'd check it out. I'd wager most of you have read a bit about Haskell or Go or Erlang or Scala, without ever seriously intending to develop in it. I would suggest the same approach to Perl 6.
- jeffdavis 12y agoThe P in PERL stands for "practical". Switching the story and saying that it's now an academic pursuit feels like abandonment to some. Programming in perl5 was part of a livelihood for many people; uncertainty and decade-long limbo is very poor leadership. (And leadership is a privilege; followers get mad when they lose faith in a leader.) That being said, perl6 is interesting, so I think looking at it more like haskell could be valuable.
- anonbanker 12y agoLarry Wall also says that the P can equally be validated as "Pathetic". And it's a lowercase Perl, not PERL. Source: the Camel book.
- vorg 12y agoThe P in perl also comes from the P in BCPL, a language from 1966, also according to Larry Wall. And from BCPL came, in order... * B language * C, and its statically-typed "C" derivatives C++, Java, C#, ObjectiveC * P for perl, and its dynamically-typed cousins and derivatives Python, PHP, Ruby, etc * L for whatever's next, must be the final victory of Lisp
- anonbanker 12y ago[citation needed]
- vorg 12y ago> Source: the Camel book > [citation needed] You didn't have a citation on your own quote when I responded to yours without a citation. Perhaps you should have written "Whoops, I neglected to add the source of my quote when you replied but have done now. I can't, however, find the source of yours -- where did you get it?". As for my quote about the acronym of BCPL being a premonition of the languages after it, I read it somewhere sometime before 1997 which was the last time I programmed in Perl.
- anonbanker 12y agoSo, we've confirmed that: * You maybe programmed in Perl once in '97. * You didn't know the difference between PERL and Perl. * You don't know what the camel book is (Programming Perl by O'Reilly), and have never even read the first chapter. * you have no citation for your BCPL statement.
- jeffdavis 12y ago