in reply to Re^6: The future of Perl?
in thread The future of Perl?

++ and I'd already read that. My point is less that I'd have picked differently and more that how much effort a minor platform takes is perhaps as important as how many users it has.

Starting with a cleaner, simpler, more easily managed core could make managing ports around the edges of the code simpler. Starting with an example POSIX machine (and sticking to mostly POSIX), be that GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, Darwin, or whatever and then adding thin, isolated compatibility layers around the file handling and signals on not-so-POSIX systems goes a long way toward portability. One or two platforms is plenty for a first model, but choosing not to support low-hanging fruit beyond that just because the fruit isn't very popular seems silly. Now, if there's a platform that absolutely nobody will step up to support, that's an issue for that platform.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: The future of Perl?
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Nov 10, 2014 at 21:12 UTC
    One or two platforms is plenty for a first model,

    That is exactly the point. Reduce, reduce, reduce. Refactor & test; refactor & test. (Minimal platforms for tests means least hysteresis for testing.)

    Then, if the project achieves anything, and if there are sufficient people willing to contribute to a given platform, then add it back.

    Remember, nothing changes in the existing P5 line -- unless p5p decide to change it.

    Less platforms at the start means less people required; that means it is easier to achieve agreement at each step; less chance of getting held up by one platform.

    One of my steps would also be 64-bit only.

    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

      I'm curious about the 64-bit only part. Do you mean you'd force types to long-long on 32-bit machines that handle that? Perhaps you mean that you'd only support native 64-bit machines? Do you mean merely that your primary development environment would be a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit capable hardware platform, and that 32-bit systems could be fairly trivially ported? There is an awful lot of computing that still gets done on 32-bit processors.

[reply]
        Perhaps you mean that you'd only support native 64-bit machines?

        Yes.

        Simplify, simplify, simplify. (But that's only what I would do...)

        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

In Section Meditations