Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> 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".
I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. You have some excellent
points, Tom, as always. I do, however, disagree we should view renaming
Perl 6 to "Perl++" or something else as even a remote possibility. At
all.
Instead, I'd like to see a Perl 6 that has a ridiculous amount of power
"just under the hood", but which superficially looks like "the same old
Perl", with perhaps a few exceptions here and there.
I absolutely *love* Perl. *LOVE*. It's the *only* language I enjoy
using. It's fun! I'd hate to see it destroyed, and I want to emphasize
this strongly lest people misread some of my RFC's.
I don't think having Perl 6 be the bastard child of terrible OO,
quasi-PDL, Python, C structs and types, missing prefixes, and moving
everything out of core is a good goal. And I think accepting the idea of
a "Perl++" is the easiest way to let this happen.
I just reread Simon Cozen's excellent RFC 28, just to remind myself of
what we should be aiming for here. And if any of my RFC's ever run
against this goal, please point them out. I'll be the first to retract
them. But I don't want Perl++, I want a better Perl.
<climbing down from grandstand and preparing for tomatoes>
-Nate
