> If you talk that way, people are going to start believing it. The > typical Perl 6 program is not going to look very different from the > typical Perl 5 program. The danger of us continually talking about > the things we want to change is that people will forget to notice the > tremendous amount of stuff that we aren't changing. Maybe, but for one I'm starting to wonder. TomC's rant rang true in my ears. How much can we change and still call it the same language? I'm not yet panicking, I'm just trying to hug some firm ground here. > Larry -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
- Re: Perl, the new generation Larry Wall
- Re: Perl, the new generation Michael G Schwern
- Re: Perl, the new generation Peter Scott
- Re: Perl, the new generation Nathan Wiger
- Re: Perl, the new generation Larry Wall
- Re: Perl, the new generation Michael G Schwern
- Re: Perl, the new generation Nathan Torkington
- Re: Perl, the new generation Larry Wall
- RE: Perl, the new generation David Grove
- Re: Perl, the new generation Damian Conway
- Re: Perl, the new generation Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: Perl, the new generation Simon Cozens
- RE: Perl, the new generation David Grove
- Re: Perl, the new generation Nathan Wiger
- Re: Perl, the new generation Nathan Torkington
- Re: Perl, the new generation Larry Wall
- RE: Perl, the new generation David Grove
- Re: Perl, the new generation Michael G Schwern
- Re: Perl, the new generation Stephen P. Potter
- perlsmall (was Re: Perl, the new generation) Michael G Schwern
- Re: Perl, the new generation Nathan Torkington