On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 09:20:13AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> So, I wonder aloud, do we want to signify that degree of change with a more
> dramatic change in the name? Still Perl, but maybe Perl 7, Perl 10, Perl
> 2001, Perl NG, Perl* - heck, I don't know, I'm just trying to get the
> creative juices flowing.
I know, I know! We can call version 5.7 "Perl 7" instead! Oh wait,
Sun already did that...
I know, we'll call it Perl 2001 and name every new version after the
current year to pressure users into needless upgrades! Oh wait,
Microsoft already did that.
I know, we'll switch to roman numerals! Perl VI! (vi users rejoice!)
Oh wait, Apple already did that...
I know, we'll call the new release "Perl 6.0" and then increment every
release after that buy 1.0. "Perl 7.0", "Perl 8.0"... It'll look
like we're putting out a brand new perl with brand new features every
time! Oh wait, AOL already did that...
I know, we'll take 5.6.2 and change the name to "Perl ME"! Then users
will think they're getting a whole new product instead of just a bunch
of bug fixes. Damnit, Microsoft beat us to it again!
(Salt to taste)
Version numbers are, at best, an indication of the magnitude change.
At worst they are a cheap marketing ploy. I've always liked that
Perl's version numbers are relatively free of marketing hoopla (the
jump from perl3 to perl4 notwithstanding). The move from 5.005_03 to
5.6.0 style was jarring enough (and fairly well justified). Its been
so long since we've had an integer increment that it should be fairly
shocking.
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalitee Is Job One
AY! The ground beef, she is burning my groin!
http://sluggy.com/d/990105.html
