Perl 5.20.0

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Perl 5.20.0 by taint (Chaplain) on May 27, 2014 at 17:10 UTC
Thanks for the heads-up, tobyink. For me, the things that I found most interesting, was (as you mentioned); better UTF-8 support. Any improvements in this area come as welcomed news. It just seems so unnecessarily difficult, as it is. The Better-64 bit support has some interesting points too: the internal array functions now use 64-bit offsets, allowing Perl arrays to hold more than 231 elements Now it'll be even easier to make poorly designed routines. ;) The regular expression engine now supports strings longer than 231 characters. WOW! This, I think, will be welcomed news to those working with huge database tables, and such. Thanks again, tobyink. --Chris Ąλɐp ʇɑəɹ⅁ ɐ əʌɐɥ puɐ ʻꜱdləɥ ꜱᴉɥʇ ədoH	[reply]
Re^2: Perl 5.20.0 by Your Mother (Archbishop) on May 27, 2014 at 18:14 UTC
Regarding better UTF-8, I don't think you're reading it the same way I am. Perl has long had the best Unicode support of any of the high level languages. The only changes I saw were an update to the current spec, which is to be expected and has been the norm, and some `locale` fixes which are welcome but `locale` is probably still a big global space mess everyone can avoid in code with proper encoding/decoding layers. So it hasn't been improved exactly. And it's as difficult, unfortunately, as it needs to be. I only mention this because a lot of the complaints I hear about an admittedly painful part of hacking seem to slight Perl. Perl is a shining handhold in a sea of muck WRT Unicode handling. It's not easy but it is in no way Perl's fault.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: Perl 5.20.0 by taint (Chaplain) on May 27, 2014 at 21:23 UTC
Thanks for the clarification, Your Mother. But please do note; I never intended to insinuate that Perl performed poorly, in any way, where UTF-8 was concerned. Only, that anything that might make the production of GOOD UTF-8, any easier, or more efficient. Was welcomed news. :) Thanks again. --Chris Ąλɐp ʇɑəɹ⅁ ɐ əʌɐɥ puɐ ʻꜱdləɥ ꜱᴉɥʇ ədoH	[reply]
Re: Perl 5.20.0 by Tux (Canon) on May 30, 2014 at 12:15 UTC
I installed 5.20 (64bitall threaded longdouble) on OpenSUSE 13.1 `Linux 3.11.10-11-desktop [openSUSE 13.1 (Bottle)] x86_64 Xeon(R) CPU +E3-1245 V2 @ 3.40GHz/3672(8) x86_64 11914 Mb This is perl 5, version 20, subversion 0 (v5.20.0) built for x86_64-li +nux-thread-multi-ld` [download] I managed to get most of my 5.18.2 installed modules also installed under 5.20. Some needed answering questions I did not (yet) have available in my cpanprefs and others needed patches I had done before but did not store other than in the RT ticket that was already filed for the module. What is left uninstallable is the list below. XML::LibXML::PrettyPrint from tobyink was manually changed to replace the useless dependency on common::sense (useless as it adds no value over using strict, and adds a dependency on a module that is blocked in my cpanprefs), with `strict`. `Devel::Size - size mismatch. Analysis done by DaveM Image::Magick - hangs in mpeg/read.t test JE - several issues ($^T, $^W, regex) Lingua::Translate - babelfish redirect (no perl problem) MooseX::App::Cmd - test fail POE::Loop::Tk - Cannot redirect out of tied STDIN Statistics::LineFit - longdouble issues in test (bad test case) SVN::Core - make fails due to svn incompat` [download] failing for failing dependency: `WWW::Scripter::Plugin::Ajax - depend on JE WWW::Scripter::Plugin::JavaScript - depend on JE` [download] the 5.20.0 tree now has 9048 .pm files based on 818 releases installed from cpan after the initial install. I'd call that a success. Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: Perl 5.20.0 by taint (Chaplain) on May 30, 2014 at 08:11 UTC
I think another note worthy point, might be the removal of: CGI s2p a2p For completeness, the following are also slated for removal: inc::latest Module::Build Package::Constants While I've been depreciating CGI for quite some time. I think many will find the depreciated warning as quite a surprise. I'm disappointed s2p is on the "hit list". I think it makes an excellent RE tutor, for people coming to Perl, who are sed savvy. For clarity, I should mention, the preceding list of Modules will be removed. But their usage will in 5.20.0 throw a depreciated warning until a "future release" (whatever that means), when they actually get removed. --Chris Ąλɐp ʇɑəɹ⅁ ɐ əʌɐɥ puɐ ʻꜱdləɥ ꜱᴉɥʇ ədoH	[reply]
Re^2: Perl 5.20.0 by Tux (Canon) on May 30, 2014 at 09:14 UTC
CGI has only been removed from core, but now is (way) more actively maintained on CPAN. No loss there. `a2p` and `s2p` may have been removed from CORE, but you can install App::a2p and App::s2p and now get maintained version. I agree that they give great tuturial value, but OTOH as such they are rather outdated. Module::Build should never have been, just as `cpanplus` should never have been in CORE. Both served fine as a (bad) learning curve into the alternatives getting better, but neither ever deserved a CORE spot IMHO. Having both on CPAN is more than enough. Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^2: Perl 5.20.0 by ikegami (Patriarch) on May 30, 2014 at 15:18 UTC
They're not being deprecated; they're slated for removal from core. They're not going to cease to exist; they're simply not going to be bundled with Perl. You'll continue to able to install them from CPAN. PS - The word is "deprecated". "Depreciated" means something else.	[reply]
Re^2: Perl 5.20.0 by tobyink (Canon) on May 30, 2014 at 11:19 UTC
"future release" (whatever that means) It means 5.21.0, which has in fact already been released. Assuming there are other stable 5.20.x releases, they will be based on Perl 5.20.0, so will still include these deprecated modules. `use Moops; class Cow :rw { has name => (default => 'Ermintrude') }; say Cow->new->name`	[reply]
Re: Perl 5.20.0 by Anonymous Monk on May 29, 2014 at 13:29 UTC
I've been hearing things (P5P, blog posts) that the Copy-On-Write mechanism is causing some trouble. I am curious as to whether some monks have any thoughts or experiences in favor of or against upgrading to 5.20.0 in terms of possible bugs etc.?	[reply]
Re^2: Perl 5.20.0 by tobyink (Canon) on May 29, 2014 at 16:06 UTC
If you're referring to RT#121975, it seems that between Perl 5.19.11 and 5.20.0, some of the COW improvements stopped working on some platforms (including Darwin). However, the worst case scenario for this bug seems to be that Perl 5.20 "suffers" from 5.18-like performance. I'm now using Perl 5.20.0 as my main development platform (and have been since yesterday) and so far haven't experienced any problems with it. This includes having installed things like Moose, LWP::UserAgent, RDF::Trine, etc which have lot of dependencies and pretty big test suites. `use Moops; class Cow :rw { has name => (default => 'Ermintrude') }; say Cow->new->name`	[reply]
Re^3: Perl 5.20.0 by ikegami (Patriarch) on May 30, 2014 at 15:19 UTC
That's not surprising. Every stable Perl version is tested against all of CPAN before release.	[reply]
Re^2: Perl 5.20.0 by ikegami (Patriarch) on May 30, 2014 at 15:21 UTC
The COW changes exposed bugs in many XS modules. If these problems were found by their test suites, they have been fixed.	[reply]
Re: Perl 5.20.0 by nevdka (Pilgrim) on May 30, 2014 at 01:59 UTC
5.20.0 sounds awesome! Does anybody know when Strawberry Perl 5.20.0 will be available?	[reply]
Re^2: Perl 5.20.0 by Anonymous Monk on May 30, 2014 at 02:21 UTC
5.20.0 sounds awesome! Does anybody know when Strawberry Perl 5.20.0 will be available? :) When it is made available ;) Maybe one month, maybe 8 months ... Strawberry Perl for Windows - Beta Releases	[reply]