I just touched upon how natural programming can be a way forward for Perl in my previous post, and quickly saw a twitter from chromatic not understanding the “criticism (?)” of Perl 6. As he is a member of the Perl 6 development team, I am happy that he noticed my post, but not so happy about the lack of understanding. So a clarification is probably called for.
My post was not a criticism of Perl 6. I am quite skeptical and apprehensive about P6, which shone through in my article, but criticising a project that started in 2000 for not implementing ideas published in 2008 would be rather unfair. However, Perl seems to be in search of a purpose nowadays, with lessening interest and corresponding calls for better marketing. I wanted to present a large challenge to programming in general, and to show that this is an opportunity for Perl and the Perl community.
Particularly since I don’t think better marketing is such a good idea. I think a programming ecosystem that makes you go “wow, this is really going to make my programming great” markets itself.
So this was actually more picking up the challenge presented by chromatic himself to come up with a vision for Perl.
Now, that he didn’t understand that, I can’t help. But I am quite impressed by the Perl 6 development team that they actually pick up and notice the talk in the community that quick. That’s promising for the “community rewrite of Perl and the community” that Perl 6 development originally promised.
(Actually I just wanted to show a cool debugging tool but got carried away.)