From: Dick Davies <rasputnik@...>
Date: 2004-04-21T03:30:46+09:00
Subject: Re: [OT] Objects in perl6 (rubyish :)

* Mark J. Reed <mreed@thereeds.org> [0459 14:59]:
> Ollivier Robert <roberto@REMOVETHIS.eu.org> writes:
> >Previous apocalypses did that for me a long time ago. Perl6 -- the language
> >not Parrot which is a good idea -- seems to be a kludge on Perl5 with
> >enough incompatibilities with Perl5 to block many people from upgrading...
> 
> Two objections to the above:
> 
> 1) A kludge on Perl5 is exactly what Perl6 *isn't*.  The design team has
> repeatedly shown a willingness to completely rip things out and redesign them 
> from the ground up to make them better.  
> 
> BUT:
> 
> 2) Incompatibility is a non-issue, since perl6 (the program) will understand
> Perl5  (the language) and, in fact, assume it by default, so perl5 programs
> will continue to run unchanaged even if the only perl binary on the system
> is Perl6.

That causes problems in itself though, if half the programmers do it the 
'old way' you still get line noise. It also causes major headaches for everyone
on CPAN, who have to maintain two versions of their packages, or at least arrange
it so their code supports both formats.

To be fair, I don't see an alternative, but adding new keywords without retiring
old ones sounds like trouble...


Personally, I started to learn Ruby after I realised how big a change was
coming with p6. I figured if I was going to learn a new language, I may as well
bite the bullet and start from scratch.
 
I still write perl, but it's uncomfortable now.
I agree the OOP looks better, though.  But its too little too late for me.

-- 
Meeting, n.:
	An assembly of people coming together to decide what person or
department not represented in the room must solve a problem.
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns