Nathan Wiger wrote: > the more compatible > with Perl5 Perl6 is, the more likely it is to be accepted. I don't believe that's necessarily true. If Perl6 proves to be a significantly better Perl than Perl5, people will adopt it, especially if they're inclined toward the Perl philosophy anyway. (And at first, those are the only people we have to convince.) To this end, sacrificing the Virgin of Perlish Power to the God of Backward Compatibility would be unwise in the extreme. Put simply, I'd take Conway's Perl6 Power Extension Pack over the ability to run my existing programs (which work just fine under my (still functioning) perl5, thanks) under perl6 any day. Put abstractly, if I perceive Perl6 as a new-and-improved, yet vaguely incompatible, upgrade to Perl5, I am much less inclined to adopt it that if I perceive it as a bold stride above and away from Perl5. -- John Porter
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Edward Peschko
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Dan Brian
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Dan Sugalski
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Edward Peschko
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Simon Cozens
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Piers Cawley
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Glenn Linderman
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Michael G Schwern
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Ted Ashton
- Perl 5 compatibility (Re: Larry's Apocalyps... Nathan Wiger
- Re: Perl 5 compatibility (Re: Larry's A... John Porter
- Re: Perl 5 compatibility (Re: Larr... Dave Storrs
- Re: Perl 5 compatibility (Re: Larr... John Porter
- Re: Perl 5 compatibility (Re: Larry's A... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Perl 5 compatibility (Re: Larry's A... James Mastros
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 John Porter
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Michael G Schwern
- RE: Larry's Apocalypse 1 David Whipp
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Ariel Scolnicov
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Peter Scott
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Dan Sugalski