Edward Peschko writes:
: On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 09:43:34AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > 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.
: >
: > Larry
:
: No, I don't think people will upgrade if this is the case. Why should they?
: If perl5 works 'good enough', and they have to change all their scripts. As
: others have said,why spend the money?
:
: We need to keep syntactic compatibility, which means we need to keep the
: ability for perl6 to USE PERL5. Hence, one of the goals should be to have
: parrot/durian/pisa/what-have-you create a perl5-compatible parser, and switch
: between perl6 and perl5 on the fly.
That's what I've been saying. <grumble>
: The perl6 design needs to *contain* perl5's. It has to be able (ultimately) to
: create a parser which does what perl5 does, and people need to be able to run
: perl5 code without modification. Otherwise, this won't fly. People will not
: upgrade, at least not in large numbers.
That's what I've been saying. <grumble> <grumble> <grumble>
Let's not confuse Perl 6, the Language, with Perl 6, the Implementation,
which includes compatibility apparatus that knows about Perl 5.
Larry
