SD Times columnist Andrew Binstock has come out with another poorly informed column that says nothing more than "Perl hasn't updated in years, and therefore is irrelevant."
Let's look at his errors and FUD:
- Not recognizing Perl 5.6, 5.8 and 5.10 as "major releases"
- "Perl’s penchant for near-hieroglyphic syntax."
- Quoting TIOBE as a meaningful indicator of anything.
- "Perl 6 release is still a long way off" -- Can you tell us when it will be, Mr. Binstock?
- "still five years later, we’re years away." -- Apparently, he thinks he can, and he's wrong.
- "Perl has only the original Perl implementation plus an experimental version in Haskell under development."
So, although I wish he wouldn't have written such an error-filled column, I'm still glad he did. Why? Because he's showing that Perl is anything but irrelevant or doomed.
If Perl were truly doomed, and Perl 6 were never going to come out, then why would he bother writing a column about it? Why not write a column about how nobody uses COBOL or Forth? That Perl and the future of Perl is a topic for publication just shows that Perl is anything but dead.
For more about the bright future of Perl, including Perl 5, see Piers Cawley's excellent article "The Perl Future"
I see an active Perl 5 community, working on and with, excellent tools on CPAN... I see Perl 6 and Parrot hitting their targets. This isn't crystal ball gazing. This is what's happening now.... Perl isn't moribund. 2009 won't be a make or break year - I doubt we'll see fireworks, but I think that developments like Perl-On-A-Stick and Moose will continue to make life easier for curious newcomers, old hands and even returnees like me.