Mailing List Archive

Improving p5p: Perl is going to stay Perl
We just spent a painful year deciding that in fact, we're not going to enable strict by default, even though we all wish there was a way we could do that without inconveniencing a lot of people.

So we're not going to break backwards compatibility without a compelling argument. We want to move the language forwards more quickly than we have been, but we'll be sticking with the yearly release schedule, and every year's release should be a safe candidate for /usr/bin/perl.

We saw with Perl 6, that opening up the gates to many changes at the same time is not compatible with a regular release schedule. And as we saw with the transition from Python 2 to 3, no matter how well prepared you think you are, with a large body of deployed code, it's going to take years for all of your users to move over.

We want to make perl a better Perl, not a different language. We're not going to switch to Raku's model for sigils, or change to . instead of ->, for example.

Don't propose changes that go against these principles.

We don't want to discourage wild ideas, just as long as they're wild ideas that feel at least vaguely aligned with Perl's trajectory. If you're not sure, bounce your ideas off someone, or write them up a blog.
Re: Improving p5p: Perl is going to stay Perl [ In reply to ]
Thank you, this is all good to read, I support it. -- Darren Duncan

On 2021-05-16 12:36 p.m., Neil Bowers wrote:
> We just spent a painful year deciding that in fact, we're not going to enable
> strict by default, even though we all wish there was a way we could do that
> without inconveniencing a lot of people.
>
> So we're not going to break backwards compatibility without a compelling
> argument. We want to move the language forwards more quickly than we have been,
> but we'll be sticking with the yearly release schedule, and every year's release
> should be a safe candidate for /usr/bin/perl.
>
> We saw with Perl 6, that opening up the gates to many changes at the same time
> is not compatible with a regular release schedule. And as we saw with the
> transition from Python 2 to 3, no matter how well prepared you think you are,
> with a large body of deployed code, it's going to take years for all of your
> users to move over.
>
> We want to make perl a better Perl, not a different language. We're not going to
> switch to Raku's model for sigils, or change to . instead of ->, for example.
>
> Don't propose changes that go against these principles.
>
> We don't want to discourage wild ideas, just as long as they're wild ideas that
> feel at least vaguely aligned with Perl's trajectory. If you're not sure, bounce
> your ideas off someone, or write them up a blog.
Re: Improving p5p: Perl is going to stay Perl [ In reply to ]
2021-5-17 4:37 Neil Bowers <neilb@neilb.org> wrote:

> Perl is going to stay Perl

I agree.
Re: Improving p5p: Perl is going to stay Perl [ In reply to ]
Hi Neil [and all]!

On Sun, 16 May 2021 20:36:01 +0100
Neil Bowers <neilb@neilb.org> wrote:

> We just spent a painful year deciding that in fact, we're not going to enable
> strict by default, even though we all wish there was a way we could do that
> without inconveniencing a lot of people.
>
> So we're not going to break backwards compatibility without a compelling
> argument. We want to move the language forwards more quickly than we have
> been, but we'll be sticking with the yearly release schedule, and every
> year's release should be a safe candidate for /usr/bin/perl.
>
> We saw with Perl 6, that opening up the gates to many changes at the same
> time is not compatible with a regular release schedule. And as we saw with
> the transition from Python 2 to 3, no matter how well prepared you think you
> are, with a large body of deployed code, it's going to take years for all of
> your users to move over.
>
> We want to make perl a better Perl, not a different language. We're not going
> to switch to Raku's model for sigils, or change to . instead of ->, for
> example.
>
> Don't propose changes that go against these principles.
>
> We don't want to discourage wild ideas, just as long as they're wild ideas
> that feel at least vaguely aligned with Perl's trajectory. If you're not
> sure, bounce your ideas off someone, or write them up a blog.

I admit that I've only read a small sample of that fight (and meta-fight, and
meta-meta-fight, and so on, along with a lot of censorship and personal
attacks/etc.). Nevertheless, like Joel on Software wrote on
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2008/03/17/martian-headsets/ the choice
between breaking backcompat or not is always hard (putting the developer between
a rock and a hard place), and I agree that reducing the boilerplate to "use
v7"/etc. may be the best solution.


--

Shlomi Fish https://www.shlomifish.org/
https://youtu.be/GoEn1YfYTBM - Tiffany Alvord - “Fall Together”

I started out as a BASIC programmer. Some people would say that I’m
permanently damaged. Some people are undoubtedly right.
— Larry Wall

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - https://shlom.in/reply .