zlacker

[return to "What Killed Perl?"]
1. orev+kg1[view] [source] 2025-11-19 18:08:42
>>speckx+(OP)
The backwards incompatibility of Perl 6 absolutely killed Perl.

There are many languages still in use today that have all kinds of warts and ugliness, but they remain in use because they still have momentum and lots of legacy things built in them. So being ugly or old isn’t enough of a factor for people to abandon something in droves.

Once you need to rewrite everything, there’s no reason to stay with something you know since you need to fully retool anyway.

As a Perl programmer since v5 was released, the confusion around 6 completely destroyed almost everyone’s enthusiasm, and immediately caused all new projects to avoid Perl. It seemed like 5 had reached the end of the line, and 6 was nowhere to be found. Nobody wants to gamble so many hours of their lives, and the future of their business, on such an uncertain environment.

If Perl 6 had any visible movement within the first few years, it might have survived, but it was a good decade before they even admitted Perl 6 might take longer than expected, and then more time after that before they admitted it should have been a new language. 6 was interesting for language geeks, and they probably did some cool things, but you can’t run a large popular project like it’s a small research project. That completely destroyed all momentum in the community. Perl 5 development only resumed far too late, after the writing was already on the wall.

Both Bill Gates and Linus understand backwards compatibility as a sacrosanct principle. Python only just barely survived the jump from 2 to 3. JavaScript can only survive this because there’s no other option in a browser.

◧◩
2. kaashi+5o1[view] [source] 2025-11-19 18:37:30
>>orev+kg1
> Python only just barely survived the jump from 2 to 3.

I really don't think this is true at all.

Python 2 to 3 took a really long time, it was a real struggle, lots of people stayed on 2 for a really long time.

But I really don't think Python was close to dying the same way Perl has/is. There was no risk of Python not "surviving" in my opinion.

There was always a clear way forward and people were actually moving. The mass migration of millions or billions of lines of code from 2 to 3 actually happened and has many high profile million+ line migrations, like Yelp or Dropbox.

There was never anything similar for Perl 5 to 6, totally different situation.

◧◩◪
3. true2o+L42[view] [source] 2025-11-19 21:59:55
>>kaashi+5o1
I know companies with a big Python 2 stack that rather preferred to rewrite in typescript than migrate to Python 3

I turned down one of those companies because I didn’t want to deal with that migration in 2021

◧◩◪◨
4. LexiMa+y72[view] [source] 2025-11-19 22:14:49
>>true2o+L42
I will never forget Mercurial's postmortem on their experience with the Python 3 transition. They had very few kind words to say about the process.

https://gregoryszorc.com/blog/2020/01/13/mercurial's-journey...

Part of me even wonders if the transition had any role to play in why Mercurial gradually lost whatever foothold it had in the DVCS ecosystem.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. defen+WS2[view] [source] 2025-11-20 04:35:22
>>LexiMa+y72
Hindsight is 20/20 but that article definitely makes me question the technical leadership of the project. They chose to write a source transformer (which introduced its own set of issues) rather than update string literals to use b'' syntax because they didn't want contributors to have to learn how to use python 3? And because they didn't want lines to be too long? And because it would break change attribution for the lines in question? None of those reasons sound compelling to me at all, but the author presents them as the correct decision.
[go to top]