[jasode]

>It wasn't designed for that,

And I'm not "penalizing" Perl for that.

>I'm more shocked Python has managed to bridge that gap,

That's more to my point. Old languages like C++ and Python keep getting rejuvenated as 1st class drivers of innovation but Perl (the language -- not the cpan) keep getting ignored.

I was surprised when Google chose Python as one of the 1st class languages for its new Tensorflow instead of a new language like Julia. I do understand why they chose Python but nevertheless was surprised.

Same for C++. It gets rejuvenated in things like graphics programming (NVIDIA's CUDA SDK is C++ not Perl). And when Bitcoin showed up in 2009, it's canonical client was C++ not Perl. Also, updates to C++ via C++14 and C++17 were discussions that turned into reality whereas Perl 6's long development became a running joke about vaporware.

Perl5 and Perl6 don't really have any new stories like that where it gets rejuvenated. Therefore, it keeps dropping off everyone's radar as "legacy".

Whether Perl programmers are highly productive with Perl isn't really the issue.

[kbp]

> Same for C++. It gets rejuvenated in things like graphics programming (NVIDIA's CUDA SDK is C++ not Perl). And when Bitcoin showed up in 2009, it's canonical client was C++ not Perl.

Perl is not competing with C++; they're entirely different languages with entirely different usecases. Comparing it to Python is reasonable; comparing it to C++ is silly.

> Also, updates to C++ via C++14 and C++17 were discussions that turned into reality whereas Perl 6's long development became a running joke about vaporware.

Newer C++ versions are more akin to newer Perl 5 versions like 5.26 (May 2017), 5.24 (May 2016) etc. Perl 6 is a new language using some of the same ideas; comparing Perl 5 and Perl 6 is like comparing C++ and C#, not C++ and C++17.

[jasode]

>Perl is not competing with C++; they're entirely different languages with entirely different usecases.

Yes, I understand that C++ does not compete with Perl. My point is the rejuvenation stories, not the runtime or use case differences.

I use a utility every day called ExifTool[1] that's 100% Perl source code or very close to it. However, ExifTool does not keep Perl at the top of mind the way Tensorflow brings Python relevancy to a new generation of programmers.

[1] https://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/

[kbp]

> Yes, I understand that C++ does not compete with Perl. My point is the rejuvenation stories

Well, the way C++ had new versions released in 2017 and 2014, Perl 5 had new versions released in 2017 and 2016; what stagnation are you demonstrating? You said "updates to C++ via C++14 and C++17 were discussions that turned into reality"; and the same thing happened with updates to Perl 5 (which is the language "Perl" is usually shorthand for). Perl 6 is an entirely different language, it, along with languages like Ruby, compares to Perl 5 the same way C# and Rust compare to C++.

[jasode]

>what stagnation are you demonstrating?

Mindshare.

I thought it was clear that my rejuvenation examples were not about point releases or size of cpan but rejuvenating the mindshare of programmers.

Instead of my words getting misinterpreted and we keep going around in circles, let's try to bypass that and turn the question around:

What is your explanation of why Perl has declined in mindshare and is one of the most disliked languages in programmer's survey?

[kbp]

My point was that the fact that C++ (like Perl) has had multiple updates in the past few years, and that Nvidia chose C++ instead of Perl as the primary language for an API are not evidence of Perl's decline. Perl 5 receives more frequent updates than C++, and C++ is being used where it makes sense and where Perl wouldn't have been used even when it was the new hotness. How is that evidence that Perl has fallen off?

I'm not saying that Perl's popularity hasn't greatly declined, I'm just saying that the evidence you're offering for it isn't evidence.

[jasode]

>Perl 5 receives more frequent updates than C++,

But it's not just quantity of updates. It's perception of the updates and what new things they bring to the table. Surely you're aware that many Perl programmers abandoned the language in between Perl 5 and Perl 6 because they felt it was getting neglected. (There's also a long post from a ~20 year Perl veteran (forgot his name) of one of the famous libraries on HN explaining his reasons for leaving Perl before Perl 6 but I can't find it at the moment.) How do we reconcile why they thought Perl was stagnating even though it was getting frequent updates?

This was the opposite perception of C++11, C++14, C++17 where many programmers were complaining that it was getting too many features and getting too complicated.

>Perl wouldn't have been used even when it was the new hotness.[...], I'm just saying that the evidence you're offering for it isn't evidence.

Ok, I shouldn't have derailed the discussion by giving the impression that NVIDIA SDK could have been Perl. The main idea is that old languages other than Perl are getting in the news for new domains.

Let me be more generic: There is no new rejuvenation stories where <any_domain_where_Perl's_runtime_model_and_scripting_semantics_is_appropriate> was chosen by a new computing domain help keep it relevant and keep it from being "disliked" by programmers. Is that wording more acceptable and suitable evidence of Perl's decline?

I'd also still like to get your opinion of why Perl has declined in mindshare and is one of the most disliked languages in programmer's survey.