Re: each @array

On Sep 10, 2007, at 1:12 PM, demerphq wrote:

> On 9/10/07, Nicholas Clark <nickccl4.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 10:03:04PM +0200, demerphq
wrote:
>>> On 9/10/07, Artur Bergman <skycrucially.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 10, 2007, at 12:50 PM, demerphq
wrote:
>>
>>>> It was, we left the innovation to Perl 6.
>>>
>>> Well, this doesn't seem to have been a good
strategy.*
>>
>> It was a damn good idea at the time.
>>
>> Without it Perl 5 would have descended into massive
flame wars  
>> about batshit
>> innovation versus backwards compatibility, without
anything  
>> actually getting
>> done.
>>
>> As it was, it freed up the competent people to get
5.6 out. And  
>> then 5.8 out.
>
> Ok, fine. Then let me rephrase: it seems this strategy
is no longer in
> the best interests of the community.
>
> Yves

Is it?

Just as a comparison to Linux. It has stayed at 2.6.

Artur

Artur Bergman wrote:
> On Sep 10, 2007, at 1:12 PM, demerphq wrote:
>>
>> Ok, fine. Then let me rephrase: it seems this
strategy is no longer in
>> the best interests of the community.
> Is it?
> Just as a comparison to Linux. It has stayed at 2.6.
I haven't run the numbers - but I am fairly certain Linux
has had 100X 
as much churn as Perl during the same time. The 2.6
represents the 
architecture, not the content. Major parts of the kernel
have changed 
very significantly between 2.6.0 and 2.6.23.

Cheers,
mark

-- 
Mark Mielke <markmielke.cc>

* Michael G Schwern <schwernpobox.com> [2007-09-10
22:20]:
> Well, let's see....
> 
> 5.4.0     05-1997
> 5.5.0     07-1998
> 5.6.0     03-2000
> 5.8.0     07-2002
> 5.10.0    10-2007 (if we're lucky)
> 
> Plot that on a graph and we get a release date for 5.12
of
> something like 2016.

What that graph tells me is that 5.10 should have happened
in
11-2004 or so and we should at this point have started the
journey to 5.14.


* Jim Cromie <jim.cromiegmail.com> [2007-09-10
22:55]:
> I think this misses these important facts
> 
>                 5.8.1         2003-Sep-25
>                 5.8.2         2003-Nov-05
>                 5.8.3         2004-Jan-14
>                 5.8.4         2004-Apr-21
>                 5.8.5         2004-Jul-19
>                 5.8.6         2004-Nov-27
>                 5.8.7         2005-May-30
>                 5.8.8         2006-Jan-31

Consider those important facts in light of the fact that
even the
COBOL standard gets an update every so often. A bunch of
maint
releases, important though they may be, do not get you much
attention.


* Artur Bergman <skycrucially.net> [2007-09-10 22:30]:
> There is something to be said for the word done.

“It’s not dead, it’s just very, very stable.” 

* Artur Bergman <skycrucially.net> [2007-09-10 22:35]:
> Just as a comparison to Linux. It has stayed at 2.6.

To make that a valid comparison we’d have to be at Perl
5.8.20.4
or so, with core language features introduced along the way
that
were not part of 5.8.0.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/&g
t;