I agree that the "incorrect statement" was factually incorrect. However, it was widely perceived to be correct. That perception did hurt perl (both 5 and 6). It made many people see perl as "dead" while perl 6 was under development.
>>> "It took way too long to mature to an initial release" > > 1. Yeah, it too a long time. Yeah that really really depressed me. But > to be fair, the task was not trivial. And the timescale is shorter than > it has taken humanity to return to the Moon! But now, things are > different. I only use Perl 6 when I have the choice. When I need speed, > I go to Perl 5, or to C. When I have in-browser stuff, I use javascript. > When I do Android apps, I bang my head to get Java to work. Etc etc etc. > Given the diversity of hardware and operating systems today, I doubt > there will ever be a single universal language for all things. Because many people believed the incorrect statement, the length of time it took to implement perl 6 was too long. A lot of people viewed perl as dead or in limbo. >>> "Having two programming languages that are sufficiently different to >>> not be source compatible, but only differ in what many perceive to be a >>> version number, is hurting the image of both Perl 5 and Perl 6 in the world" > > 2. "Hurt the image"? That is marketing speak. Marketing speak has its > uses. But if the Perl community wants to be different, why do we need to > kowtow to marketing gurus? Just because others do it, doesn't mean we > have to. Especially not if there is a really good reason not to. I > happen to agree with Larry that the continuing unity of the Perl > community, with two sister languages that interact with each other, is > very very valuable, and not to be easily sacrificed on the altar of > fashionable phrases. Unity is much more valuable than the 'benefits' of > 'brand image'. I agree the unity of the Perl community is important. However, I'm not sure that outweighs the external perceptions. People are used to higher versions being mostly backwards-compatible but perl 6 is not. This has managed to put perl in a worse situation than Python (2 vs 3) in a lot of people's perceptions. >>> "such a name change would no longer require the approval of the BDFL" > > 3. The Benevolent Dictator still lives, and there are revolutionaries > and revisionists who want to change things? Well I'm sympathetic to > revolutionaries. Two things though: Whose exactly approval is to be > required for a name change? And actually I think that Larry Wall is > still more revolutionary in his decision to have the sister languages of > Perl 5 and Perl 6 than all those parroting the market speak about name > change and brand value. The decision on perl 5 vs perl 6 naming is more revolutionary but it IS hurting Perl. I love Perl but it has an image problem. If Perl didn't have an image problem, Python never would have become so popular. Perl used to be THE scripting language. It doesn't matter that it is still around and still continuing to be developed. What matters is people's PERCEPTIONS of Perl (dead, dieing, irrelevant, etc). Too little was done for too long about Perl's image. It may be too late to bring it back into the forefront as it used to be. On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 12:58 PM Richard Hainsworth <rnhainswo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On the topic raised by Eliza, a counter rant. Hopefully, everyone will > detect the humour (English spelling) and not take offence. > > There are is one statement in Eliza's original text that is not correct, > and several that are debatable. The debatable statements are > understandable, and entirely reasonable per se, given the way software > and other languages are developed. The statements are not however > consistent with the distinct and unique way that Larry Wall has guided > the development of Perl since he first wrote Perl 1. > > The 'name' issue has been hotly debated for years. Larry has made a > decision. > > Whatever way one might feel about his decision, an over-riding > consideration (looking at Larry's words) is one of unity: keeping the > whole Perl world together, and not letting it shatter into pieces over > shibboleths. I think that this unity is really important and well worth > fighting for. More power to Larry! > > Incorrect statement: "Perl 6 was initially conceived to be the next > version of Perl 5." > > No. It might be correct to say that Perl 6 was conceived to be the next > evolution of **Perl**. It was never ever conceived to be backwards > compatible, in fact it was explicitly designed _not_ to be backwards > compatible, and so was never the 'next Perl 5'. There was / is a goal to > allow for most Perl 5 programs / modules to be automatically re-written > into Perl 6, and there is already the possibility of writing Perl 5 code > inline in a Perl 6 program. But inlined Perl 5 remains Perl 5. > > Perl 5 has developed significantly since the Perl 6 evolution process > began. That just shows the power and resiliance of the original Perl > concept, and the creativity of Perl 5 developers. The 'next versions' of > Perl 5 compared to the Perl 5 that existed when the first Perl 6 > Apocalypses were written, have already landed. Perl 5 remains a great > modern language. That in itself is a different gloss to 'took back the > reigns', by which I mean that the same facts of history can be treated > in very different ways if you change your perspective. Not everything in > life has to correspond to simple explanations, or sound bites > convertible into limited character messages. > > The debatable statements include: > > - "It took way too long to mature to an initial release" > > - "Having two programming languages that are sufficiently different to > not be source compatible, but only differ in what many perceive to be a > version number, is hurting the image of both Perl 5 and Perl 6 in the world" > > - "such a name change would no longer require the approval of the BDFL" > > 1. Yeah, it too a long time. Yeah that really really depressed me. But > to be fair, the task was not trivial. And the timescale is shorter than > it has taken humanity to return to the Moon! But now, things are > different. I only use Perl 6 when I have the choice. When I need speed, > I go to Perl 5, or to C. When I have in-browser stuff, I use javascript. > When I do Android apps, I bang my head to get Java to work. Etc etc etc. > Given the diversity of hardware and operating systems today, I doubt > there will ever be a single universal language for all things. > > 2. "Hurt the image"? That is marketing speak. Marketing speak has its > uses. But if the Perl community wants to be different, why do we need to > kowtow to marketing gurus? Just because others do it, doesn't mean we > have to. Especially not if there is a really good reason not to. I > happen to agree with Larry that the continuing unity of the Perl > community, with two sister languages that interact with each other, is > very very valuable, and not to be easily sacrificed on the altar of > fashionable phrases. Unity is much more valuable than the 'benefits' of > 'brand image'. > > 3. The Benevolent Dictator still lives, and there are revolutionaries > and revisionists who want to change things? Well I'm sympathetic to > revolutionaries. Two things though: Whose exactly approval is to be > required for a name change? And actually I think that Larry Wall is > still more revolutionary in his decision to have the sister languages of > Perl 5 and Perl 6 than all those parroting the market speak about name > change and brand value. > > Richard > > aka finanalyst > > On 12/08/2019 07:14, Eliza wrote: > > Hello perl6 world, > > > > I saw the perl6 github issue, just was confused will perl6 change its > > name? > > > > Perl 6 was initially conceived to be the next version of Perl 5. It > > took way too long to mature to an initial release. Meanwhile, people > > interested in taking Perl 5 along, took back the reigns and continued > > developing Perl 5. > > > > Having two programming languages that are sufficiently different to > > not be source compatible, but only differ in what many perceive to be > > a version number, is hurting the image of both Perl 5 and Perl 6 in > > the world. Since the word "Perl" is still perceived as "Perl 5" in the > > world, it only seems fair that "Perl 6" changes its name. > > > > Since Larry has indicated, in his video message to the participants of > > PerlCon 2019 in Riga, that the two sister languages are now old and > > wise enough to take care of themselves, such a name change would no > > longer require the approval of the BDFL. > > > > I would therefore propose to change the name to "the Camelia > > Programming Language" or "Camelia" for short, for several reasons: > > > > the search term "camelia programming language" already brings you to > > the right place. This means that changing the name to "Camelia" will > > have minimal impact on findability on search engines such as Google > > and DuckDuckGo. > > > > the logo / mascot would not need changing: it's just that it now also > > becomes the actual name of the programming language. > > > > "Camelia" in its name, still carries something Perlish inside of it. > > > > The concept of "Camelia" being an implementation of a specification in > > "roast", still stands. The alternative, to use "Rakudo" as the name of > > the language, would cause confusion with the name being used to > > indicate an implementation, and would endanger the separation between > > specification and implementation. > > > > Choosing yet another name, such as Albus, would mean having to start > > from scratch with marketing and getting the name out there. Hence my > > preference for a known name such as "Camelia". > > > > The "Camelia" logo is still copyright Larry Wall, so it would allow > > Larry to still be connected to one of the programming languages that > > he helped get into the world. > > > > https://github.com/perl6/problem-solving/issues/81 > > > > regards, > > Eliza
