On 02/12/2010 02:57, Dave Rolsky wrote:
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Octavian Rasnita wrote:
From: "Dave Rolsky" <auta...@urth.org>
We hear the same argument in reverse that people should work on Perl 5
instead of Perl 6, as if the people who are working on Perl 6 would _of
course_ be working on Perl 5 if 6 didn't exist. There's no reason to
think
this is true, and many reasons to think it's not. Many Perl 6 people
never
contributed to Perl 5 the way they do with 6.
Maybe there are others that said that, but I have said something
related and I want to be more clear.
I wasn't attributing this idea to you. The idea that Perl 6 has
drained development resources from Perl 5 has come up many times over
the years.
For some reason this reminds me of the idea that's come up several
times, that learning DBIC is quicker and easier than learning SQL if you
don't know SQL already. Another idea I don't agree with, although I
concede the idea that people would be working on Perl 6 if it weren't
for Perl 5 focus is pure assumption based on no real evidence; much like
the idea above.
Lyle
