5.53 vs 5.6 vs 6

Some interesting discussions have come across the bootstrap mailing list for Perl 6 regarding the reasons people upgrade/switch to a new version/language.

The first point that was made on which I would like to see more discussion is that many people and corporations stayed with 553 over 56 because they simply couldn't see a real reason to upgrade, so I'd like a little more info. Please reply and lets find out:

What version of Perl are you using?
Why are you using that version? specifically, why did you or did you not upgrade to the next version
If you didn't upgrade, what would it take (read what features/support/etc would it have to have) for you to upgrade to the next version?

Secondly and finally, the following comment was made as to the groups to which Perl 6 must appeal. And what appeals to them:

Quoted from e-mail to bootstrap list by skud@netizen.com.au

<quote>In order to succeed, Perl needs to convince the following groups of
people that it is worthwhile:
	A - Developers (or potential developers) *of* Perl
	B - Developers (or potential developers) who use Perl
	C - People who hire people who use Perl

How do we reach those groups? 

Group A are attracted to Perl through word of mouth and for the love of
the code, for the most part.  Anything that smells like corporate
PR/marketing/etc will, for the most part, turn them off.

Group B are sometimes like group A, and sometimes attracted via
technically oriented sales and marketing -- feature lists, fact sheets,
demos, etc.  Flashy advertising/PR may catch their attention but won't
necessarily hold it.  The ability to find real information about Perl
and actually take part in useful interactions with other Perl developers
(whether by email, web chat boards, or at conferences) is what will draw
them in and hold them.

Group C don't care much about the code itself.  Many of them want to
use whatever will get the job done on time and well (easy for Perl!),
while others are of the "magazine management" kind.  

Everyone except for the "magazine management" types want real
information, not hype.  Sure, real information that's printed on glossy
paper will be more impressive, but it does need to actually convey
Perl's real benefits to them as programmers or as managers.
</quote>

Now, I disagree with the groups listed first of all, I think that group B should be split into two groups,:

B.1 Developers who currently develop in Perl.
B.2 Developers who currently develop in a language other than perl, but might be convinced to switch to perl.

So how does perl attract these groups? I leave group A as an exercise for the reader, as I am neither a developer nor a potential developer of perl. Group B.1. want all of the current functionality, and things like support for unicode, safer threads, and other things that have been listed on the bootstrap list, and we must ensure that we do not alienate those first two groups in the process of attempting to attract groups B.2., and C

However B.2. and C. are where our potential for growth lies. Group B.2. wants perl to be like their own language of choice, and I again leave what will change their tune largely as an exercise for the reader, with one exception: that they are driven by a desire for money(read material goods)... as indeed most of mankind is (Whoa there mister, holster your guns, I said most not all). Thus if we can attract group C., and hence create more job openings requiring perl programming experience, then we create more converts from group B.2., not to mention the side benefit of increased sallaries and potential for current perl coders.

Anyway, I've rambled on much longer than I intended and quite long enough, but I'd be interested to see what the rest of you think.

Comment on 5.53 vs 5.6 vs 6

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE: 5.53 vs 5.6 vs 6 by le (Friar) on Jul 24, 2000 at 16:11 UTC
Ok, let's start a little poll: 5.0 patchlevel 5 subversion 3 I use this version because I use FreeBSD, where Perl is an integral part of the systems sources. 5.0053 is the version currently delivered with FreeBSD 4.0 Actually I'm not as good enough in Perl (read: don't know all of the features) to miss any feature. 5.0053 gives me (right now) everything I need.	[reply]
(kudra: 5.005_03) RE: RE: 5.53 vs 5.6 vs 6 by kudra (Vicar) on Jul 24, 2000 at 16:16 UTC
I agree with le and wouldn't bother to reply except that you want a headcount. Same perl version, same operating system.	[reply]
(ar0n) RE: 5.53 vs 5.6 vs 6 by ar0n (Priest) on Jul 24, 2000 at 16:55 UTC
5.0 patchlevel 5 subversion 3, which came standard with my distribution. GNU/Linux (2.2.14) Will be upgrading to 5.6 RSN :), just because I'd like to learn more about the new features. -- ar0n	[reply]
RE: (2) 5.53 vs 5.6 vs 6 (ybiC 5.00404) by ybiC (Prior) on Jul 24, 2000 at 16:47 UTC
5.00404 I mostly use Debian 2.1, and 5.00404 is a package in the "stable" distribution. 5.6.0 I'm dabbling with OpenBSD 2.7 and it ships with 5.6.0. cheers, ybiC	[reply]
RE: 5.53 vs 5.6 vs 6 by steveAZ98 (Monk) on Jul 24, 2000 at 18:20 UTC
I agree that the most potential for growth lays in the managment side. Most perl developers already know how great it is. It's convincing managment that it's the way to go that the trouble comes. I don't know how many times I've heard from managment that they want java, everyone is using java. They hear platform independence and they say wow, I can develop this on a windows box and then not have to worry about where I'm going to host it, not knowing that the same can be done with perl for the most part. Management tends to follow the hype, believing that if everyone else is doing it, I can't be wrong. They are driven by money, but follow the hype to preserve their reputation. Maybe this is what needs to be done with perl in the managment communities? I think it may be hard to get the same kind of marketing budget as sun though. So, maybe it's up to the developers to convince managment by showing them what can be done with perl. I think anyone in group B.1 and above should take on some of the responsibility of convincing managment that perl makes sense. Starting with group B.2 because they should be easier converts. I'd like to hear what people think of this. 1. perl 5.004_04 - 5.005_3 2. Debian 2.1 and Debian Potato 3. Haven't had a chance to get to 5.6 yet, except on a windows platform, but haven't played with that much	[reply]
RE: 5.53 vs 5.6 vs 6 by mikfire (Deacon) on Jul 24, 2000 at 18:37 UTC
I use perl 5.5.3 but we are preparing to upgrade to 5.6 at work. WE use it on a wide variety of platforms, mostly Solaris 2.5.1. We are upgrading mainly due to open( my $foo, "/path/to/somewhere" ) the scoped warnings and the ability to make new warning classes upgraded Data::Dumper that can handle qr// correctly. my $ip = 10.0.0.1; The last one is, I understand, a horrible kludge but it will make lots of my coding much easier. At home I use FreeBSD and I have perl 5.5.3 in /usr/bin and just installed perl 5.6 in /usr/local/bin. I understand that FreeBSD-CURRENT is using perl 5.6 and I expect that to be backported soon. mikfire	[reply]
RE: 5.53 vs 5.6 vs 6 by young perlhopper (Scribe) on Jul 24, 2000 at 17:21 UTC
I use Perl 5.004_04 at home on debian 2.1 and at work on both Solaris 2.6 and DU 4.0D. The main reason for not upgrading yet is basically not getting around to it. The boss/perl guru is planning on upgrading within the next week or two. Basically, I'm of the conviction that I should upgrade whenever possible to avoid bugs/holes in old versions, and make it easier for developers by lessening the amount they have to support old versions of their software. I think a big credit to perl is the fact that it has succeeded without having a marketing juggernaut (like MS) behind it. Microsoft is ramming c# and .NET down its developers throats, and a lot of buzzword junkies out there are buying it. Perl has developed a huge following by actually being a useful technology. -Mark	[reply]
Debian Perl by gryng (Hermit) on Jul 24, 2000 at 19:31 UTC
I'm using whatever Debian's package list will currently contain. The only way I'd change that behavior is if Debian wasn't going to upgrade in any reasonable time period, and I needed a particular feature/program that a newer version of Perl supports. i.e. path of least resistance :) . Ciao, Gryn	[reply]
RE: 5.53 vs 5.6 vs 6 by Ozymandias (Hermit) on Jul 24, 2000 at 19:40 UTC
Perl 5.5.3, mostly on Linux (Mandrake 7.1, RedHat 6.2, Slackware 7.0) When will I upgrade? When I need a feature that isn't supported in 5.5.3. Until then, I have no need to upgrade. (Exceptions to this rule are if I use an OS that bundles a newer version of Perl with it; I may not see a reason to upgrade, yet, but I have no interest in downgrading, either.) - email Ozymandias	[reply]
RE: 5.53 vs 5.6 vs 6 by redmist (Deacon) on Jul 26, 2000 at 15:06 UTC
1) I am using Perl 5.005_03 because, 2) It came with Red Hat 6.1. in answer to number 3, the only reason I would develop with a very new version of Perl would be it's user base. I would'nt want to write a script that might be ~~useful~~ to others only to have them be restricted by their version of Perl. redmist redmist.dyndns.org redmist@users.sourceforge.net	[reply]
RE: 5.53 vs 5.6 vs 6 by atl (Pilgrim) on Jul 24, 2000 at 17:50 UTC
1. 5.005_03 on SuSE Linux 6.4 (Kernel 2.2.14) 2.+3. At the moment, there is no need for a special 5.6 feature; when I have time (read: only undesireable things to do ;-)) I�ll compile and install 5.6 anyway. Andreas	[reply]
RE: 5.53 vs 5.6 vs 6 by knight (Friar) on Jul 24, 2000 at 22:34 UTC
My main Perl project is the software construction tool Cons. As we're making it a point to support Cons under multiple Perl versions, I regularly run our regression tests against 5.00307, 5.00405, 5.00556 and 5.6.0. (I'd like to run it against 5.002xx as well, but I can't track down a copy; anyone out there have an archive?) I'll always upgrade to the latest Perl version to make sure Cons still works on the latest and greatest. I also try to use the latest as my default for general work. We're being anal about making sure Cons runs under these older versions of Perl out of the same concerns about people not upgrading their Perl versions. The reality, though, is that a lot of people can't control when they upgrade Perl; their administrators (employers) decide for them. Consequently, if you're trying to write something that's as easy as possible for as many people as possible to use easily, you need to avoid some of the cutting-edge features that aren't supported in earlier versions...	[reply]
RE: 5.53 vs 5.6 vs 6 by royalanjr (Chaplain) on Jul 25, 2000 at 00:30 UTC
ok, my couple coppers... 1) Perl 5.6.0 on Linux 2.2.14-5.0 2) Just keeping with the latest version. Roy Alan	[reply]
Surveys by atl (Pilgrim) on Jul 25, 2000 at 01:35 UTC
Hi! I�ve been thinking ... taking a survey this way seems to be a lot of manual work, one has to read and evaluate every answer, keeping the stats manually. Huh ... Maybe a survey nodelet (similar to the voting booth) would be nice. The voting booth itself would be quite ok for a start, as long as an individual could start his/her own survey. Any comments? Andreas	[reply]
RE: Surveys by turnstep (Parson) on Jul 25, 2000 at 03:05 UTC
Well a voting booth would be nice if people were strictly answering radio button type answers, but I prefer it in a format like this due to all the variance in the answers. Speaking of which, I use: 5.003 (ouch! No, it's not my system. Yes, I know it should be upgraded) 5.6.0 4 other versions in between those, on various OS's I upgrade when I can, but don't consider it a very high priority. If a major version came out (e.g. Perl 6) that would be a different story. Right now there are not many limitations in the language that really affect my day-to-day coding. We've come so far from Perl's humble beginnings that it is almost a point of diminishing return. Not that Perl is perfect yet, and it is good to always strive for perfection, but I don't see many things being added to it that would make people run out and say "How did we ever do without this?"	[reply]
RE: 5.53 vs 5.6 vs 6 by beppu (Hermit) on Jul 28, 2000 at 14:59 UTC
5.005_03 I've heard people having problems w/ perl 5.6.0 and mod_perl so I've shyed away from it for now. It's tricky to install your own perl w/o horking debian. I don't like how they use their packaging system to duplicate the functionality of CPAN, but oh well. I do have a perl 5.6.0 installation into a home directory of a user account that I use for testing out weird stuff, though.	[reply]
RE: 5.53 vs 5.6 vs 6 by davorg (Chancellor) on Jul 24, 2000 at 16:59 UTC
I use 5.6 on RedHat 6.2 (and Win98) for development in my own time at home. At work we use 5.005_03 on Solaris 2.5.1 (and I can't see that changing anytime soon). -- <http://www.dave.org.uk> European Perl Conference - Sept 22/24 2000, ICA, London <http://www.yapc.org/Europe/>	[reply]
RE: 5.53 vs 5.6 vs 6 (5.005_57 thread) by Russ (Deacon) on Jul 25, 2000 at 00:36 UTC
Perl 5.005_57 threaded (used in production) Redhat 5.1 kernel 2.2.12 Can you say, "Piecemeal upgrades?" Russ Brainbench 'Most Valuable Professional' for Perl	[reply]


laziness, impatience, and hubris
	PerlMonks