On 10/24/05, Nate Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joshua Gatcomb wrote: > > On 10/24/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>>>Feel free to add your own, or fears you heard about! > > > > FEAR: The Perl6 process is driving away too many good developers > > > > FEAR: Perl6 will not be as portable as p5 > > > > FEAR: Perl6 is un-necessary and the time, money, and resources is impacting > > p5. > > These are at the top of my list. Sooner or later big Perl advocates > (like myself) are going to look for other languages because the future > is too uncertain and unstable. > > Also, in terms of module rewriting: This is a massive effort. I don't > know if anybody's looked at the internals of stuff like Class::DBI and > its derivatives, but it's huge.
I have. Module rewriting should be look at in terms of implementing something completely new to fit the current spec, at least in the beginning. Modules like CDBI are good because they have a lot of tests. So, you run the tests in P5 and have them access the P6 classes. Add new tests to test new P6-only features, like roles, and you're good to go. You don't need to read the internals to port the module. Plus, rewriting is going to happen over the space of 1-2 years, which is just fine. Remember, there's still Perl4 code out there, and that was over 10 years ago. In 10 years, there will still be Perl5 code out there, and it will run just fine on Parrot (and whatever other VMs are out there). This is the point I think you're missing - you can write pure native Perl5 in a Perl6 environment and call Perl6 modules, without a single issue. You can call Perl5 modules from Perl6 without a single issue. Everything else is icing. > The fact that there's not alot of active p5p'ers on this list should > alarm people more. Why? They're focused on Perl5, not Perl6, as it should be.
