>The compatibility path for perl5 to perl6 is via a translator. It
>is not expected that perl6 will run perl5 programs unchanged. The
>complexity of the translator and the depth of the changes will be
>decided by the decisions Larry makes.
This becomes not merely
"It is not expected that perl6 will run perl5 programs unchanged."
but also
"It is not expected that perl6 will run perl4 programs unchanged."
"It is not expected that perl6 will run perl3 programs unchanged."
"It is not expected that perl6 will run perl2 programs unchanged."
"It is not expected that perl6 will run perl1 programs unchanged."
This has never been the case before, at least, not so dramatically.
Sure, the edges have been dodgy, like what happened with "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
But if *MOST* perl1 .. perl5 programs aren't going to work unchanged,
that means that most people's existing perl knowledge-base will no
longer be valid. That probably means that they aren't going to be
able to just type in the Perl that they already know, either, since
that Perl will no longer be valid. And in my ever so humble opinion,
that's when one should consider dropping the name "perl".
This is *not* a bad thing; think of it as much the same as occurred
when people stopped calling their improved version of Lisp "Lisp"
and started calling it Scheme, or how "C with Classes" eventually
took on a different name as well. Names--or, I suppose, "branding",
if you truly must--are important things. If the perl6:perl5
relationship is similar in breadth to what we saw in the perl5:perl4
one, then perhaps, maybe even probably, one will get away with it.
However, if the stretch is appreciably further, I don't think one
will.
And I do fear the negative public image ramifications to Perl. This
will have to be handled gently and sensitively lest the public lose
faith. (No, I didn't really *say* "spin control" there--you just
read it.) A new dialect name might save some public confusion.
--tom
