Re: being held back, I agree. I don't necessarily want to intentionally
break current modules by adding modern code unless it can be demonstrated
to be a decent benefit performance-wise, but I don't want to impede new
additions by requiring compat with perl 5.8 (hence my suggestion of a 'use
5.01x' pragma when appropriate).
Ubuntu 12.04 LTS is on perl 5.14.2:
BTW, I was wrong about perl 5.8 being 8 yrs old; it's almost 11 yrs old
(perl 5.8.0 was released on 7/18/2002). perl 5.8 reached end-of-life in
2008, fixes being only for security reasons.
So, I support dropping perl 5.8 support, but we should have a decent route
of use for the folks stuck on old clusters.
On Feb 5, 2013, at 9:32 PM, Hilmar Lapp wrote:
> Does anyone know what Ubuntu uses? I've heard lots of other old version
problems with CentOS.
> 8 years is really old, and at some point I fear that weighing backwards
compatibility too much just holds us back in a real detrimental way.
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Florent Angly wrote:
>> For what it's worth, the current stable version of Debian uses perl
>> On 06/02/13 12:40, Leon Timmermans wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Fields, Christopher J
>>>> Aim for 5.10.1, but be careful of smart-match. If you do this, make
sure to add a 'use 5.010' pragma at the top.
>>>> (for those who don't like this, please speak up. perl 5.8 has been
around almost 8 yrs, we would like to allow using new features if at all
>>> I *really* hate saying it, but I fear a lot of places are still stuck
>>> on 5.8, in particular on 5.8.8 because of CentOS 5. I know my
>>> department still is and doesn't seem to be in a hurry to upgrade, and
>>> I'm pretty sure it won't be the only one (though personally I use a
>>> self-compiled 5.16).
>>> Bioperl-l mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>> Bioperl-l mailing list
>> [email protected]
> : Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- hlapp at drycafe dot net :
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> [email protected]