Re^2: If Perl 5 were to become Perl 7, what (backward-compatible) features would you want to see?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: If Perl 5 were to become Perl 7, what (backward-compatible) features would you want to see? by stevieb (Canon) on Oct 21, 2019 at 23:47 UTC
"with Python, the 2–3 change was a bit of a nightmare" As someone who personally worked in an organization that dealt with Python, including while trying to deal with 2-3 change, it is/was more than a nightmare. I was in a job interview just this week where my interviewer stated "you dealt with Python 2-3 phase? That's crazy, we're still dealing with it now". That was beyond the silly parens after a print statement. Everything is so fast to change nowadays, nothing seems relevant. Perl 19, Python 86, C 4016, quarterly profits, not seeing long term, do what's coming out of 'college'... things seem to be speeding up to achieve the inevitability of futile. Interesting watching it happen, it has been.	[reply]
Re^4: If Perl 5 were to become Perl 7, what (backward-compatible) features would you want to see? by Lotus1 (Vicar) on Oct 23, 2019 at 03:41 UTC
stevieb wrote: I was in a job interview just this week where my interviewer stated "you dealt with Python 2-3 phase? That's crazy, we're still dealing with it now". That was beyond the silly parens after a print statement. I was at my job a few weeks ago working on a project where I'm the expert on scripting bulk changes in a certain modeling software when a non-programming project manager asked me if Perl is obsolete and why don't I use Python. The upgrade must not have done all that much damage to Python.	[reply]
Re^5: If Perl 5 were to become Perl 7, what (backward-compatible) features would you want to see? by Anonymous Monk on Oct 23, 2019 at 06:45 UTC
a non-programming project manager asked me if Perl is obsolete and why don't I use Python Brainwashed people say the strangest things!	[reply]
Re^3: If Perl 5 were to become Perl 7, what (backward-compatible) features would you want to see? by Lotus1 (Vicar) on Oct 22, 2019 at 15:27 UTC
How has the Python 2 to 3 transition been compared to the Perl to Raku experience? More of a nightmare for me since I've never had to deal with Raku. With Raku using a different file extension it makes it easier to run both Perl and Raku on the same machine. But if updating Perl to version 7 means that we need to change Perl script file extensions and all the automated installs, environment variables, scheduled tasks, etc. that seems like a hassle. I don't see what the advantage is. The '.pl' extension is very well known. What if there is another application that uses '.p9' already? What happens when we get to '.p99'? Ok, that last question is a little tongue in cheek (meaning, not serious, with a wink and a grin). I don't think I'll be around to see Perl version 99 but you never know. It's just my two cents worth and I am not attacking Perl. How poorly the Python upgrade has gone is irrelevant since they didn't change the file extension. If they had I suspect the upgrade would have been worse in the long run. Easier in the short term maybe. Giving up '.pl' seems like giving up the brand. In the *nix world I suppose it is irrelevant since they don't need to bother with extensions. Just set it as executable and put in the shebang and go. Edit: typos.	[reply]
Re^4: If Perl 5 were to become Perl 7, what (backward-compatible) features would you want to see? by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Oct 22, 2019 at 22:14 UTC
Yeah. Dunno. For my part I have never used the `.pl` except where it’s a convention already in a given codebase. `chmod +x` is all I do. File extensions tell lies easily.	[reply] [d/l] [select]


No such thing as a small change
	PerlMonks