David Grove writes: : "A slow transition" may be a catchphrase nowadays, but with Perl 5 stagnant, Perl 5 is far from stagnant--please don't bend the truth to fit your points. My impression is that there's quite a bit more constructive activity on p5p than there was a year ago. : Unless Perl 6 is capable of parsing and running that 99.9% (or higher) of : Perl 5 scripts originally foretold, I foresee a far worse outcome for Perl 6 : than has happened for an almost universally rejected 5.6 and 5.6.1. There you go again, as Uncle Ronnie used to say. Excessive hyperbole will cost you sympathetic readership. Nobody ever foretold 99.9%, as far as I recall. I surely didn't. And 5.6 is being adopted, albeit with reasonable caution. Larry
- Re: Perl, the new generation Mike Lacey
- Re: Perl, the new generation Michael G Schwern
- RE: Perl, the new generation David Grove
- Re: Perl, the new generation Dan Sugalski
- Re: Perl, the new generation Michael G Schwern
- Re: Perl, the new generation Richard Proctor
- Re: Perl, the new generation Mike Lacey
- RE: Perl, the new generation David Grove
- Re: Perl, the new generation Michael G Schwern
- RE: Perl, the new generation Peter Scott
- RE: Perl, the new generation Larry Wall
- RE: Perl, the new generation David Grove
- Re: Perl, the new generation Simon Cozens
- RE: Perl, the new generation David Grove
- Re: Perl, the new generation Michael G Schwern
- Re: Perl, the new generation Simon Cozens
- Re: Perl, the new generation Peter Scott
- Re: Perl, the new generation Simon Cozens
- Re: Perl, the new generation Piers Cawley
- Re: Perl, the new generation Mike Lacey
- Re: Perl, the new generation Michael G Schwern