In 1994, Perl 5 ripped up Perl 4.
In 1997, Perl 6 was announced. At the time, I was excited. (But then, I was still just a youngster.)
Almost 19 years later (and about 22 years after Perl 5.0.0), Perl 6 was released.
Since then, Perl 5 has become far far more deeply established than Perl 4 (or 3, 2, or 1). There's a lot more history to rip apart.
Perhaps Perl 6 should have been called something else, but like it's predecessor, it always was intended to replace it's predecessor. Maybe if Perl 6 development had taken only the few years Larry had thought it would take, things would have been less contentious.
From Perl 5's perspective, it would have been better to not reserve version 6, as Perl 5 has been burdened by still being version 5.x, so has the appearance of being very outdated.
Even what is now Perl 6 would have benefited from not reserving 6. It's been over 28 years since Perl 1 was released. Meanwhile, in 12 years, Fire Fox is at 44, and Chrome is at 47 after only 6 years.
Perhaps if, after the 5 (or even 10) year mark, Perl 6 had been renamed Perl++ or Perl-NG (or similar variant), the taint of obsolescence could have been shaken off by both projects.
Both are worthy languages. I hope both will have at least a decent life.
In reply to Re^2: Find your own monastery: "Perl 6" is not Perl, and Perl is not a Dinosaur
by RonW
in thread Find your own monastery: "Perl 6" is not Perl, and Perl is not a Dinosaur
by 1nickt
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |