(untitled)

This language needs a thread. I just took a quick look at code examples over at the language website: https://perl6.org/ and was very positively surprised. Does anyone here have experience with writing a project in it? It looks both significantly more expressive than old Perl, and more maintainable thanks to the optional static typing.

>>2072 Perl 6 grammars are a really cool feature. The original perl introduced regexes, having a general context free parser as a language feature feels like the natural next step.

>>2072 I really love Perl6 and hope I will be able to use it more in the near future. I rewrote a few of my utility script with it. Sadly it lacks outstanding libraries and good literature at the moment. Really digging the concurrency model as well

This blog post has been making the rounds recently. http://www.evanmiller.org/why-im-learning-perl-6.html Everyone said Perl6 is going to be way too late for anyone to care but actually, Ruby and Python popularity is starting to wane so this could be perfect timing for Perl6.

>>2613 It really does feel that way, Ruby is kind of fading away, which is sad as I always kind of preferred it over Python, and Python 2/3 situation is still a pretty big mess and continues to prove itself as a nuisance. Perl6 seems like a neat choice for pragmatic scripting purposes.

>>2613 It's the perfect time to learn Perl6!

>>2627 >Ruby is kind of fading away, Only in the West. 11s use that soykaf for everything.

>>2613 I just read that article, and this point stood out to me: > So this expression: > > "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" x 1000 > >Doesn’t make a thousand copies of the string, or even make a thousand pointers to the same string. It’s stored as a short string and a repetition count, and the VM string functions know how to operate efficiently on strings with repeated substrings. Pretty clever, right? Make a hundred million copies; RAM usage barely budges. Syntactically-obvious string repetition? I know a lot of languages have it these days, but is that really such a common thing to do? The only times I've seen it used is in, eg, testing that code involving fixed-size buffers handles too-long data correctly. It seems like a weird case to optimise for.

>>2795 yeah, that confused me as well. I suppose if you generalized it to not just strings but also arrays of values and made something like a lazy value-initialized array it would be really cool

>>2795 Smells like premature optimization, to me. But I don't write much Perl

>>2830 That's not what premature optimization means. >>2795 So it has copy on write arrays? That's pretty cool.

>>2795 >>2832 Actually never mind this, the copy-on-write optimization is only on strings. I guess it might turn out to be a useful optimization, considering that Perl is often used to process text.

>>2795 >>2830 That manner of optimization is something I'd expect an APL to do, so I wouldn't quite call it strange or premature, but it still seems misplaced perhaps, especially considering the author criticizes languages that don't do this. >>2838 I suppose that means that strings and arrays are suitably distinct in Perl 6. I wonder why that would be the case.

>>2842 >I suppose that means that strings and arrays are suitably distinct in Perl 6. I wonder why that would be the case. If you've ever used Perl you'd know that (based on my experience with Perl 5 this is): 1. Perl's strenght is in string manipulation, so it'd make sense that it optimizes heavily on strings 2. Perl has two main data types: scalars and vectors. Strings are scalars, arrays are vectors. Anyway, given that some languages make strings a special case of arrays, that doesn't mean it has to be the case for all languages.

>>2849 >1. Perl's strenght is in string manipulation, so it'd make sense that it optimizes heavily on strings >2. Perl has two main data types: scalars and vectors. Strings are scalars, arrays are vectors. That's interesting. I've never used Perl before; it was merely the discussion about this particular optimization that interested me. >Anyway, given that some languages make strings a special case of arrays, that doesn't mean it has to be the case for all languages. Of course; variety is a spice of life, after all. I'm assuming that Perl doesn't have multi-dimensional arrays and so I can see that a reason for this would probably be to make vectors of strings simple to use, which would certainly be an advantage in a language so heavily using strings.

Is perl6 a good language to pick up? I recently learned C,C++ and PHP at home and enjoyed them all. >other options? >Does it give me an advantage over other software dev applicants? >sry for not being informed only started code 1 year back

>>3079 If you're looking for near-term employment, Perl 6 probably isn't what you are looking for. It could be useful if you already have a job though.

>>3079 >Is perl6 a good language to pick up? No, because nobody uses Perl6 and it is not certain if anyone will use it in the future. >I recently learned C,C++ and PHP at home and enjoyed them all. Programming languages are not Pokemon, you don't need to learn them all. The purpose of programming is to solve cool problems. It doesn't matter which tool you use.

>>3081 Buzzword-language compliance leads to easier employment. Lots of places' HR don't give two soykafs about anything but your compliance and papers.

>>3083 Perl 6 is a cool language, but it's certainly not a corporate buzzword right now.

>>3081 >No, because nobody uses Perl6 and it is not certain if anyone will use it in the future. If you can't find people using Perl6, then you aren't looking very hard. If you want a language you can be certain people will use in the future, I have some bad news for you. >Programming languages are not Pokemon, you don't need to learn them all. The purpose of programming is to solve cool problems. It doesn't matter which tool you use. Programming doesn't have a purpose. People have purposes. If someone wants to learn a new language, who are you to tell them it's wrong?

>>3086 >If you can't find people using Perl6, then you aren't looking very hard I am not aware of any companies using Perl6, not even on casual side projects. I'm not aware of any widely used open source projects using it either (self hosting doesn't count). The fact that you can't think of any examples off the top of your head illustrates my point. >If you want a language you can be certain people will use in the future, I have some bad news for you. Are you insinuating that there is no way to know which languages will be used in the future? You are wrong. As long as legacy code exists and is generating money somewhere, there will always be jobs for that language. https://developers.slashdot.org/story/17/04/10/1441254/major-banks-and-parts-of-federal-govt-still-rely-on-cobol-now-scrambling-to-find-it-cowboys-to-keep-things-afloat?SetFreedomCookie

Ty for all the advice anons. I guess i need to see for myself what I need/want. >>3083 >SQL,Java,Python will be my GoTo languages then Sorry for the Non-lain question, this website was recommended to me by a friend so im rather new.

>>3086 >Programming doesn't have a purpose. People have purposes. If someone wants to learn a new language, who are you to tell them it's wrong? It is not "wrong" to masturbate or teach yourself Klingon, just be aware that you are not bringing any value to the world.

>>3088 You're missing the point. Anyone can become a Perl6 programmer and work with other Perl6 programmers whenever they choose to. The same is true for Lisp, Haskell, Forth, etc. Many people who do programming work, like researchers, aren't restricted by language; they can use whatever they want as long as it gets the job done. When you make your own company, you can use whatever language you want. When you write software on your own, you can use any language you want. When you develop free software over the internet, you can use almost any language you want. Your inability to see opportunities is a personal problem. >>3090 You're missing the point. Enjoying leisure isn't wrong. Sometimes I read manga or masturbate. Sometimes I write software or build electronics. Sometimes I go out with my friends or with a girl. Sometimes I learn fringe programming languages. Sometimes I do other things. A life perfectly aligned with society's betterment is lame.

>>3097 >and work with other Perl6 programmers whenever they choose to. That's a bit difficult when no one else uses Perl6. >Lisp Naughty Dog, ycombinator >Haskell Google, Intel, Microsoft, many banks and hedge funds >Forth Sun/Oracle >When you make your own company, you can use whatever language you want. If you don't want to fail you will use a language you can hire developers for. >You're missing the point. I think you are missing the point. The question was, is Perl6 a good language to pick up? Answer: no. Because of the reasons I listed. If you decide that those reasons don't apply to you or you don't care then cool, go for it. I was just giving my honest opinion on a straight question. You don't need to take it so personally.

>>3100 reading the article someone linked it looks like they're pushing unicode in source code hard for perl6 so it'd be cool if that caught on

>>3100 Funny thing is, I would also tell people that Perl6 might currently not be the best language to learn for new programmers, but your reasoning is way off. It is a bit weird you bring up the points that you do for a language that basically just came out of the oven. You are talking from the perspective of someone that can't fathom why anyone should be interested in learning something that does not help his career/job. There are people that actually enjoy tech and programming, not everything is about companies. And even if you list them, by your logic Lisp or Haskell should not be learned either. >>3090 > just be aware that you are not bringing any value to the world Yeah, "to make the world a better place" might be a nice marketing slogan, but most things do not add "value" to the world, same goes for software and programming. > Answer: no. Because of the reasons I listed. If you decide that those reasons don't apply to you or you don't care then cool, go for it. Well your answer and the reasoning behind it don't make much sense if you intend them to be a reply to >>3097. You basically answered "no since you won't find a job with it" to someone asking "is it worth to take a look at this language for fun and personal stuff?". Anyway: Currently I think the biggest point against diving deeper (or learning) Perl6 is the available references and learning material, none of the books seems very good to me and it feels like the community itself is still in the process of "learning Perl6" after years of having to focus on the development of the language itself. But in the end, no ecosystem/community can grow without people joining in, old dilemma. I find Perl6 to be really exciting as a language myself and really hope it manages to establish itself.

>>3619 >by your logic Lisp or Haskell should not be learned either. Don't build strawman. Many people use Haskell in industry, academia and open source. Lisp is also used. This is not a fair comparison at all. >You are talking from the perspective of someone that can't fathom why anyone should be interested in learning something that does not help his career/job. This is another strawman. The perspective of >>3100 is that a programming language is not worth learning if no one else uses it. It is not about jobs only. >Yeah, "to make the world a better place" might be a nice marketing slogan... It is not marketing slogan. There is a very low limit to what a single person can accomplish without help. You can do the 99 Lisp problems with Perl6 and post them on Github to make yourself feel smart but if you want to stop masturbating and work on a project that will actually make a difference to the world you will need to switch to a language that other people are actually using. >You basically answered "no since you won't find a job with it" No I didn't. This is just your misunderstanding. If you don't think so, try to find an actual quote from the thread. >someone asking "is it worth to take a look at this language for fun and personal stuff?". This is incorrect as well. You are projecting your own context which does not exist in the thread. >>3079 >Is perl6 a good language to pick up? >It is a bit weird you bring up the points that you do for a language that basically just came out of the oven. Not really. Most languages (Rust and Go for example) had massive, long term users right from the beginning. It's actually Perl6 which is strange for being and language not even the creators are using very much.

>>3620 > Many people use Haskell in industry, academia and open source. Lisp is also used. This is not a fair comparison at all. Was not trying to deny that. However you have to see this relative, compared to Perl6 a lot of people use it. Compared to Java or Python, not a lot, they count as obscure. I'm mainly a Haskell user myself, and I'm always surprised about the huge number of people (in a professional context too) that have not even heard of it, ever. So by that standard, and applying that argument, you could say "Don't learn Haskell, no one uses that". > You can do the 99 Lisp problems with Perl6 and post them on Github to make yourself feel smart but if you want to stop masturbating (...) It's sad that you advocate a stigma Lisp and Haskell programmers have to face as well. That we only use these language to feel smart while not doing any 'real world' programming. And let's be honest, even we Haskell programmers do not have the easiest of times to counter that, naming 'companies that use it' (Facebook with Haxl library for example) does not help much, after pandoc, the struggle starts. Hence why I find your arguments highly job and corporate focused. > a project that will actually make a difference to the world > There is a very low limit to what a single person can accomplish without help A lot of open source projects get brought up to the usable level by single programmers, you have to show something to generate interest. Contributors mostly appear after that point. And that is for end user software. For pure libraries you can absolutely accomplish quite a bit as a single programmer. > No I didn't. This is just your misunderstanding. > You are projecting your own context which does not exist in the thread. You did. Take a look at >>3097, which is the post I am referring to. > That's a bit difficult when no one else uses Perl6. Your answer and reason in >>3100 is to list other languages and companies that use them, and that no one (no company) uses Perl6. One could also argue that Perl6 is trivial to start writing programs in for Perl programmers, so it's not like no potential Perl6 programmers exist. > Not really. Most languages (Rust and Go for example) had massive, long term users right from the beginning. True, but you have to admit that Rust and Go sit in the unique position of receiving tailwind and full time paid developers from some of the biggest companies in the world from day 0.

>>3621 >"Don't learn Haskell, no one uses that". >we only use these language to feel smart while not doing any 'real world' programming. Nobody said this. Stop it with your fake quoting and bullsoykaf strawman. Many companies use Haskell. Zero companies use Perl6. That's the difference. >naming 'companies that use it' (Facebook with Haxl library for example) does not help much, after pandoc, the struggle starts. xmonad, HaLVM, Ivory, Tor dust. There are a number of really cool open source Haskell projects to get involved with. Not as many as a language like Python but that's not the point. The point is that Perl6 has zero. >A lot of open source projects get brought up to the usable level by single programmers, you have to show something to generate interest. Yes but you need a pretty amazing project to get people to learn Perl6 just to contribute. More likely people will just rewrite your project in another language and it will die. >One could also argue that Perl6 is trivial to start writing programs in for Perl programmers, so it's not like no potential Perl6 programmers exist. Are you sure? I thought Perl6 was a different language with new syntax. >True, but you have to admit that Rust and Go sit in the unique position of receiving tailwind and full time paid developers from some of the biggest companies in the world from day 0. Not really unique (C#, Java, C...). Instead of calling Rust and Go outliers, lets think of some languages that started off in Perl6's position and became successful anyway. Hmmm....

>>3624 > Many companies use Haskell. Zero companies use Perl6. You were criticized for building your case against Perl 6 solely upon corporate logic, that no companies use it, and your answer to that critique is....companies? > I thought Perl6 was a different language with new syntax. The difference is bigger than Python2 - Python3, but if you know Perl 5 you can start writing Perl 6 code almost right away. It is kind of a new language, but it is still Pearl. http://design.perl6.org/Differences.html Do you have any arguments against Perl 6 besides popularity?

>>3708 >You were criticized for building your case against Perl 6 solely upon corporate logic, that no companies use it, and your answer to that critique is....companies? >>3624 also talks about open source. Try reading the post you are responding to first. >Do you have any arguments against Perl 6 besides popularity? It's a pretty important point... The retarded thing is all you have to do is name some company/open source project/whatever who is using Perl6. But you can't.