Linked by Shlomi Fish on Sat 16th Oct 2004 07:28 UTC
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Just that it was too different from the current Perl to be effective as the next step in the future of Perl.
I think a big point of his (right or wrong) was that there will be a strong reluctance to change based on Perl5's current popularity, the existing knowledgebase and the huge amounts of code already written. A more legacy compatible upgrade would prove to be more successful.
I do not code in Perl so cannot comment whether or not this is an accurate view of the community and/or the proposed changes. From a business perspective it would seem to make sense to be able to support legacy stuff so you could leverage your existing IT while enhancing your capabilities for future work.
Just my "2 Cents" of course...
E.