Dave Mitchell:
> > (Please CC me on replies)
Actually, now I come to think of it, please don't CC on replies. One thing I
really hated about Perl 6 was the number of people sniping from the sidelines
providing no useful contribution. And now I've become one. Urgh.
> One word: CPAN.
I understand this argument, but it is bogus, and doesn't address my point.
Either we're breaking backwards compatibility and doing something very new, or
we're seeking to retain compatibility with the past. Which is it to be?
Yes, there's a lot of legacy crap out there. Much of the important parts of it
are XS, which we can't hope to support. (No, Dan, be realistic) So, let's go
through the CPAN argument:
* Allowing CPAN code to be run in Perl 6 tantamounts to legitimizing its
use.
* Legitimizing the legacy code means it'll never get ported to Perl 6
* Producing Perl 5 results in a Perl 6 world may not make much sense
anyway.
* Subtle differences between P5 usage and P6 usage would give module
authors a support nightmare.
* Some of those authors may not know about or want to support a Perl 6
use of their module anyway. (Thank you for your bug report, but it
appears to be written in a different language.)
* Digging a pit for module authors to fall into considered unfriendly.
* It's still a backwards compatibility sop. Perl 4 libraries had to be
rewritten for Perl 5. I don't see why Perl 5 libraries should escape.
Anyway, I've done my Ancient Mariner bit now and given my warning. Be sure to
cast off that albatross.
--
Everything that can ever be invented has been invented
- Charles H. Duell, Commisioner of U.S. Patents, 1899.
