in reply to Amicable divorce

All this sounds like bikeshedding. I'm with Philip R Brenan on the notion that development should go on in a pragmatic way, via pragmas.

If that's not possible, there's prolly something seriously wrong in the codebase, which is to be expected, and which cleanup task nobody wants to tackle. So let's build a bike shed meanwhile and label it 7.

OTOH, all this p5-vs-p7 hullaballoo should seriously calm down. One step after another. After all, the perl7 label is just a leap to get rid of perl6, and perl7 is just all perl since the shism between perl5 and perl6. Nothing wrong with that, but nothing more either. That done, work goes on with the new version number.

perl -le'print map{pack c,($-++?1:13)+ord}split//,ESEL'

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Amicable divorce
by LanX (Saint) on Jul 06, 2020 at 13:51 UTC
    I agree mostly.

    Given the planned timeline of Perl 7, it's unlikely to be more than other default pragmas.

    And Perl 5 will still stick around as backup.

    People are actually mostly discussing a future Perl 8

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
    Wikisyntax for the Monastery

[reply]

      I think this whole numbering thing is ridiculous nonsense.

      We just got over the whole Perl6 fiasco that lasted nearly two decades, and now we're right back where we started.

      Just rename it to Purl, and start back at version 1.0.

[reply]
        I think 7 is an overdue signal that Perl is alive and that development continuous.

        I could tell you plenty of stories from people insisting that development froze because of 6. They don't believe me when I say that 5.30 was released.

        I even see the current controversies positive because they seem to break the lethargy.

        I agree with your mother tho that it might already be 10 years too late .

        Cheers Rolf
        (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
        Wikisyntax for the Monastery

[reply]

In Section Meditations