Re^9: Ansi Perl

Sorry, but I think you're using the wrong Perls then. Between every major version of Perl (the 5.5.x train, the 5.6.x train, the 5.8.x train ("stable") and the 5.9.x / 5.10.x train ("blead")), new features get introduced, 5.8 introduced PerlIO and Unicode in a wide range, 5.10 will have new stuff I don't know. If you need to use certain features and rely on certain features that are not commonly used, don't move your program to a new major Perl version before thouroughly testing it.

Of course, if you don't supply the version of Perl your script is used with, you will need to test your script against all versions of Perl, but at least the future versions of Perl go through prereleases ("Release Candidates") before becoming public, and so you have some chance of getting an early warning by testing your program against bleadperl.

Comment on Re^9: Ansi Perl

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^10: Ansi Perl by Anonymous Monk on Dec 27, 2004 at 17:39 UTC
Eh, I wasn't discussing new features. Dragonchild asked for examples of things that broke existing programs. I gave them. Add Unicode (should) not break program that don't use Unicode. New stuff should not break existing programs. And p5p is trying to not break programs. But program do get broken. As the examples showed. Stating I'm using the wrong Perls doesn't make any sense in this context. If you need to use certain features and rely on certain features that are not commonly used, don't move your program to a new major Perl version before thouroughly testing it. Yes, of course. BUT TESTING AND MODIFYING THE PROGRAMS TAKE RESOURCES. Resources cost money. This thread is about standardization and how it effects Perl. One of the effects of not having standardization is that incompatable changes happen more frequently, and worse, there's no "safe" area to program in - anything can change. This is a hurdle for corporations (and programmers). This will cause people and coorperations to not use Perl. That's how it effects Perl. Of course, if you don't supply the version of Perl your script is used with, you will need to test your script against all versions of Perl, but at least the future versions of Perl go through prereleases ("Release Candidates") before becoming public, and so you have some chance of getting an early warning by testing your program against bleadperl. Once again, testing only (hopefully) shows the program will break. It only shows resources have to be consumed to get the program working again. It won't fix them. Shipping the version of Perl required is all handy, but if your 5.005_03 program needs to start understanding Unicode, the program shall need to run under 5.6.0 or later. So added to the costs of adding new features to your program come the cost of finding and fixing any breakages. I never said it wasn't solvable. It is. But the thread is about the effects of non having a standard. And this is one of the effects. I am fully aware there are benefits of not having a standard. I'm not promoting Perl standardization. I'm not even saying it's unacceptable an upgrade of Perl breaks programs. All I am saying is "an upgrade of Perl causes program breakage - and here are some examples". Your reaction of "you're using the wrong Perls then" make as much sense as if you had said "cows can fly".	[reply]
Re^11: Ansi Perl by Corion (Patriarch) on Dec 27, 2004 at 17:43 UTC
Your reaction of "you're using the wrong Perls then" make as much sense as if you had said "cows can fly". I prefer to see my reaction of "you're using the wrong Perls then" more in the context of "There are Perls that you can upgrade between without worrying that your program breaks". And that is still the point of this thread.	[reply]