Re^3: Five Features Perl 5 Needs Now

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.

Comment on Re^3: Five Features Perl 5 Needs Now

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

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]