On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> From: Brent Dax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Aaron Sherman:
> > #
> > # I think the first guy that gets hired to maintain Perl6 code,
> > # and think "hey, I know Perl, no sweat" will disagree with
> > # you.
> >
> > I disagree. He'll see stuff he doesn't understand and try to
> > consult perldoc on it, at which point he'll realize that he's
> > working with Perl 6. Then he'll run out, get Camel IV, read
> > it, and go back to work. Programmer is working with a better
> > version of language, program is fixed, and ORA made fifty
> > bucks. Everybody's happy. :^)
>
> Perhaps. Or perhaps he'll be like our company's lead C++ developers. They
> liked Perl4 well enough for a certain problem domain, saw some Perl5 code....
> and have tried to stay away from it ever since.
Pretty odd, I think that C++ is to C, what perl5 to perl4 except
they forgot about the backcompatibility thing. So, in a sense, C++
developper should like perl5.
I see Python and Ruby as cleant-up but incompatible perl5 just like
Java or C# are cleant-up C++.
Perl6 will be cleant-up perl5 with a bunch of new features that will make
more expressive than ever.
>
> Perl6 isn't going to make everyone happy.
I joked that java lover will just corps-dump (choke) when seeing:
@dirpath ^=~ s{([^/])$}{$1/};
I love it.
--
Stéphane Payrard -- s.payrard@@wanadoo.fr
# mailstat
Most people don't type their own logfiles; but, what do I care?
