Linked by David Adams on Sun 7th Dec 2008 02:03 UTC, submitted by HugoS
General Development Version 6 of the popular Perl programming language will not be compatible with previous versions, but will open up a new world of custom "languages" and interpreters, according to its founder Larry Wall. Wall and his co-developers are doing with Perl 6 -- starting again. "It will break backward compatibility [but] in order to simplify it we have to get rid of old cruft, particularly the regular expression cruft," Wall said. "A lot of the unreadability of Perl is related to the regular expression syntax " and we didn't do that, we got it from Unix. It needs to be end-of-lifed."
Permalink for comment 339481
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by Moochman on Sun 7th Dec 2008 07:49 UTC
Member since:

Admittedly, I have almost no experience programming Pearl (total extent is editing a Unix script once), but damn, I'm left with no clue what Larry Wall was trying to say! Perhaps my imagination is simply too limited... But "Perl 6 is many languages"... "The “Kewlness” of Perl 6 includes a parser that uses stringwise "surreal" precedence" ... "Perl 6 has no “core”, pre-defined operators and support for user-defined operators." (The last two quotes aren't directly from Wall--and the second one has really strange/bad grammar. I'm guessing it means that all operators are user-defined? ...maybe the article is so confusing because the author has no clue what he's writing about....)

And also... first Wall says he wants to make Perl 6 easier to read, then he says this:
"The idea with Perl 6 is you start with a standard language and you can mutate it. As long as you follow that refinement process there isn't the problem of ambiguity. There is the problem of multiple dialects, but that will always be a problem."

I'm sure that's going to help readability a whole lot, allowing programmers to customize the language so that other programmers have that much less of an idea what's going on in their code....

Edited 2008-12-07 08:09 UTC

Reply Score: 5