In terms of usage. My on the ground experience running Sydney PM is that our sponsoring companies where dropping off. No new employers where appearing. People where struggling more and more to find work.
So when i consider other languages and i consider perl, my view is that "we never break your code" is not valued by the industry. On the other hand, the perl community is used to high levels of care that perl does not break old code.
So i think that perl can inch forward with care.
To strike the right balance i think a clear, transparent, and well thought out process (which i do not yet see); along with enhanced tools to determine & remediate breakage on CPAN, it's possible to introduce changes whilst minimizing the impact.
]]>It seems likely that the story is going to be different depending on which part of the world you're in.
It's certainly the case that Perl usage in London has fallen over the last twenty years. From 1995 to 2019, I was a freelancer in London. In that time I must have worked with over twenty companies who used Perl as a substantial part of their codebase. Of that list of companies, I can only think of one where Perl is still the main part of their codebase. All the other companies fit into the following categories:
* They have ceased to exist
* They have moved their code to another language
* They are in the process of moving their code to another language
* Perl is now just one of a selection of languages which they use
In London, at least, it is irrefutable that the number of companies using Perl has fallen and continues to fall.
]]>But we're not talking about reputation. We're talking about the level of usage.
]]>Most of job about Perl is to maintnain the code or add functions. People didn't need to talk about Perl, because of its stability. "reputation" had never even been appeared in positive or negative. Many famous Japanese Perl Mongers had seemed to begin to learn other technology. Their activity about Perl had been getting lesser and lesser. I think, it is same as London which Dave wrote.
I believe aggressive progression for v7 is wanted. Bizarre philosophy and prejudiced positive perspective are not needed.
(and studying foreign language is also important, not just depending Google Translate)
]]>Thats a soft way to encourage using a version number AND it generally wouldnt impact one liners
]]>perl -MDevel::PPPort -e'Devel::PPPort::WriteFile'
We're trying very hard to avoid overloading the meaning of existing Perl features, so we deliberately didn't go with the word package
. The package
keyword simply declares something as being in a given namespace. The class
keyword in Corinna does the same thing, but it's a historical accident in Perl that classes and packages are sort of the same thing.
In reality, a class
is a data type, not a namespace. They're fundamentally different. While I don't know if it can be fixed, in the long-term, I would love to see the two ideas fully separated in Perl.
Best,
Ovid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
If these people have genuine authority gained from years of hard experience in this field then they will be able to tell us in a few cogent words why Corinna is so much better than Moose and all the other OO systems available on CPAN. They will be able to tell us the mathematical theorems that underlie their work. They will be convincing. But a bald appeal to authority, is not only not convincing, it is also demeaning because it divides Perl people in to two classes, the "hoi poloi" whose thoughts on OO are not thought worth considering and a small remainder whose thoughts, apparently are so valuable that they do not even have to back up their ideas with indefeasible argumentation.
Please could you rewrite the start of this article so that we all know the compelling reasons why Corinna is so good: then the issues can be weighed on their merits genuine or otherwise rather relying on the mere assumption of authority.
]]>Of course, that is not an exhaustive list of all the benefits of the Corinna proposal, but I felt it was enough for a single article.
As for arguing from authority at the start of the article, I don't believe that's what I'm doing. Sure, I do mention that the project is a collaboration by a large number of people who are acknowledged experts in OO Perl, but I specifically say that I mention those contributors merely to reassure the reader, not as an argument in favour of Corinna.
After all, why would I expect the reader to even consider my subsequent arguments for this project, without first establishing that the proposal is likely to be worth their time and effort? Specifically, that it is not some random crazy idea, but has been designed by a group of people with a proven track record in the field.
Yes, arguing from authority is unquestionably fallacious. And, yes, if I had written (or even implied): "This proposal should be adopted because X, Y, and Z worked on it", then that would certainly be an invalid argument.
But simply pointing out that this project has the participation and support of a large number of experts is not the same as arguing for it from authority.
Rather, it's a way of quickly establishing that the project is a serious one, with a wide variety of experienced and credible contributors...before I launch into providing half a dozen actual reasons why it's worth your time to consider. And then conclude by explicitly urging you (and all my readers) to apply the only truly compelling assessment available to you: to investigate it yourself.
]]>