Re^2: Five Features Perl 5 Needs Now

Easier said then done.

That's true of all these things. Saying it adds no information.

Perl5 isn't dead.

Then why are you so down on the idea of adding significant features, such as the above, to Perl 5? You make it sound like it's too late. Like maybe p5p should only be concerned with bug fixes from here on? Don't forget that Perl 5 has been moving toward Perl 6 for some time now. Should that trend stop? You seem to think so.

In any case, I think chromatic is in a pretty strong position to say what Perl needs now.

Between the mind which plans and the hands which build, there must be a mediator... and this mediator must be the heart.

Comment on Re^2: Five Features Perl 5 Needs Now

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Five Features Perl 5 Needs Now by JavaFan (Canon) on Dec 19, 2008 at 19:16 UTC
Then why are you so down on the idea of adding significant features, such as the above, to Perl 5? I never said that. I don't think they are features that are needed now. Some of them are certainly nice. But perl5 will survive if they won't happen.	[reply]
Re^4: Five Features Perl 5 Needs Now by jdporter (Paladin) on Dec 19, 2008 at 19:32 UTC
OK, thanks for clarifying. I guess the question is what does "needed" mean. chromatic asked, How can the language stay relevant? and offered this list as an answer. So by disagreeing with him, you're saying that Perl 5 can remain relevant without these significant additions. It's a good question, and open to much debate, but as it stands, I tend to agree with those who say that stagnation = death. By some measures, Perl (5) already has one foot in the grave. Do we want it to become an undead zombie like COBOL? Do we want Perl (5) merely to survive, or to thrive and surpass? Between the mind which plans and the hands which build, there must be a mediator... and this mediator must be the heart.	[reply]