Judging by the votes on my Raku-promoting remarks, I've sensed some hostility towards it (or me for suggesting it), so I'm unsure.
Your sense is misplaced. There's no hostility to Raku here, only to those who proclaim it to be Perl or an upgrade to Perl, neither of which it is. Mark your Raku questions here as such and those inclined will reply. If you don't mark them as such then what follows will be nobody's fault but yours. :-)
It's hard for me to understand, given the improvements Raku makes, that Perl programmers would not more quickly adopt it
It does things differently. Some may see these as improvements, others not so much. It's also demonstrably less performant than Perl and because of its design will probably always be so. I put it in the bag with things like Julia, Clojure and Eiffel: interesting conceptually and useful to be aware of should a requirement they meet ever actually arise.
You've gone on elsewhere in these threads about an inability to understand OOP conceptually. I think you might therefore find Raku equally challenging. However you may as well give it go and see what happens.
As for me, I'm sticking with Perl. It does everything I need it to. Everything. Imperative and object-orientated and functional. Extensible, expressive, succinct, fast, ubiquitous, secure. When you have a Swiss Army Chainsaw all the other tools gather dust.
🦛
In reply to Re^6: Ordering of parameters - Re^9: Converting Unicode
by hippo
in thread Converting Unicode
by BernieC
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |