List Info

Thread: Re: Future Perl development




Re: Future Perl development
user name
2007-02-27 15:59:33
On Tuesday 27 February 2007 13:11, Marvin Humphrey wrote:

> Maybe y'all ought to break Perl once.  Then all of a
sudden, some  
> company will lose a million bucks and realize how
insane it is that  
> they didn't keep a core Perl programmer on staff as an
insurance policy.

Or stop supporting ancient versions, where
"ancient" means "more than two 
years old".

-- c

Re: Future Perl development
user name
2007-02-27 16:10:13
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 01:59:33PM -0800, chromatic wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 February 2007 13:11, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> 
> > Maybe y'all ought to break Perl once.  Then all of
a sudden, some  
> > company will lose a million bucks and realize how
insane it is that  
> > they didn't keep a core Perl programmer on staff
as an insurance policy.
> 
> Or stop supporting ancient versions, where
"ancient" means "more than two 
> years old".

I've not really seen anything substantive updated to 5.6.x
recently, yet
firms still use it, and don't seem to be upset that no-one
seems to support
it actively, certainly not so upset that they want to pay
for it.

And whilst I thought that 5.004 was the oldest thing
currently in production,
someone on IRC (who may wish to de-anonymise) said:

   "last week's project was rewrite a script from perl4
to 5.8.8"


There doesn't seem to be a market for supporting the
currently unsupported.

Nicholas Clark

[1-2]

about | contact  Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )