On 8/17/05 5:39 AM, Tim Bunce wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 03:58:54PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote: >> I think it'll take years, and much actual production experience building >> Perl 6 modules before the community learns what works and what doesn't for a >> Perl 6 API (let alone implementation). So trying to pin down a "properly >> Perl-6-ish" API before Perl 6 is even through the language design process >> strikes me as a Very Bad Idea. > > I remember the early years of Perl 5 development, when a new feature was > added there'd be a period of over-zealous use followed by a hangover as > all the problems and edge-cases became apparent.
Early years? Just look at inside-out objects or MI with NEXT today! Maybe it never ends...for some people, anyway ;) > With Perl 6 there's going to be some almighty hangovers :) Understatement of the week :) >> Anyway, it maybe worthwhile to have a DBI 1.99 first, and then maybe a 1.999 >> after that. Basically, get one or two willing DBD authors who will help you >> to test and then throw away the first two attempts at a Perl 6 DBI API. >> Then at least you'll have some confidence when you commit to a DBI 2.0 >> API...which will be several years after Perl 6 is released, I hope. > > It'll be DBI 2 as DBI 1 still has a very long life ahead of it, but > it'll be DBI 2.0.00xxx for quite a while :) I just meant that there should be several, possibly very different, attempts at DBI2 before the "real" DBI2 API is pinned down. Making the experiments have a 1.99x version helps to prevent people from thinking "this is DBI2!" when it's really just the first or second prototype. As for the actual 1.x DBI reaching 1.99, well, all I can say is to start using that hundredths place! :) -John
