On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:01:47PM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whispered:
> | Peter Scott writes:
> | : So, I wonder aloud, do we want to signify that degree of change with a more
> >
> | : dramatic change in the name?
> |
> | I'm inclined to think that people will be more likely to migrate if
> | they subconsciously think we're taking continuity into consideration.
> | Which we are, albeit not at a syntactic compatibility level.
>
> It seems to me that recently (the last two years or so) and especially with
> 6, perl is no longer the SAs friend. It is no longer a fun litle language
> that can be easily used to hack out solutions to problems. It is now
> (becoming) a full featured language, quite at the expense of its heritage.
>
> When we moved from 4 to 5, so people thought we should continue developing
> 4 without all the "useless" new stuff, like OO and threads and etc. I
> wonder more and more if they weren't right. I wonder if as 6 develops if
> we shouldn't split off the old 4 syntax and have two languages.
Umm.. and what good would this new language be without CPAN? Its not logical
to dislike the syntax for the sake of disliking the syntax... And like it or
not, perl would be close to worthless if it didn't talk to the outside world
via OO. And as someone else said, if you don't like OO, don't use it.
Ed
