Either the Perl culture was not designed right or that belief was wrong then.
Or your analysis is wrong.
From my perspective the haters were winning the war in 1999/2000 but now the war is essentially over, haters have limited impact in the Perl community, and Perl is set to evolve nicely over the next decade.
And there was more than this speech back then. While it was clear from the start that total compatibility was not a goal, the resulting hodgepodge of ad hoc changes is not what was promised back then.
You have misunderstood the scope of change that was talked about at the start for Perl 6; the coherent design that has emerged; and the way the latter is indeed consistent with what was promised back then.
The whole point was that Perl 6 needed to be a radical break if Perl was to remain attractive to ultra creative thinkers like Damian Conway and hundreds like him:
Anyway, this thread should be about the bright future of Perl 5 and I'm going to switch my focus to that.
I reject the thesis that Ovid's discussion of improving Perl 5 is old hat, uninteresting, and doomed to failure. I accept that it took uncomfortably long to get to where we are for Perl 5 as well as Perl 6 but I don't buy that it's worthwhile debating whether it could or should have been done any other way and I don't buy that the thing to do right now is to pour cold water on good ideas like the ones Ovid suggested.
In reply to Re^4: The Future of Perl 5
by raiph
in thread The Future of Perl 5
by Laurent_R
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |