Never Miss a Beat: Get a snapshot of the issues affecting the IT industry straight to your inbox.
September 4, 2014
1 Min Read
We developers are not a superstitious lot. We work in a field where every cause has an effect and where anomalous events cause consternation and force remediation rather than elicit awe. There is no escape hatch by which we can dismiss unexpected developments as "God's will," or in its less-religious articulation, "Who can explain such things?" Part of this refusal to accept the inexplicable derives from the awareness that the software and hardware we work with is created by peers, rather than being natural phenomena that hide their secrets inscrutably.
As such, we don't indulge in the superstitions of other professions. But if we were to start, certainly "the curse of version 6" would be an excellent point of departure. For at least the last 30 years, version 6 of programming languages has often been particularly difficult, problematic, or in the case of a successful release, the point at which products begin a long downhill slide.
Consider Perl 6, PHP 6, VB6 -- each one so delayed as to try the patience of even the most dedicated aficionados. PHP 6 was such a twisted child that despite being under development since 2005, it had to be canceled in favor of an upcoming version 7, whose release date remains unknown.
Perl 6 was first described in 2000. Fourteen years later, a full implementation has not been shipped, although nearly complete versions exist. The problems with Perl 6 were legion, and as the thorny politics spilled over the years, the language began its long, unabated free fall.
Read the rest of this article on Dr. Dobb's.
About the Author(s)
Editor-in-chief, Dr. Dobb's Journal
Prior to joining Dr. Dobb's Journal, Andrew Binstock worked as a technology analyst, as well as a columnist for SD Times, a reviewer for InfoWorld, and the editor of UNIX Review. Before that, he was a senior manager at Price Waterhouse. He began his career in software development.
You May Also Like