I'm interested in the details of the variable scoping problems are. I'd have thought that perl's explicit declaration of lexicals with 'my' was better than "declare at first use" of javascript/python/ruby.

[There's a class of mistake where you typo a variable name which you can make in those languages which gets caught in a language where you have to declare variables.]

I share your confusion over that assertion. I actually miss Perl's excellent block scope capabilities when working in almost every other similar language. I imagine most other languages have gotten it, by now, but a few years ago when I was using Python for a few years for a client it didn't have block scope and I missed it. A brief googling actually hints that maybe Python still doesn't have block scope, which is pretty weird, so I assume I'm googling wrong.

But, perhaps discussion of scope problems in Perl is just when talking about very old code. Perl had some scope atrocities back in Perl 4 and some weirdness in early Perl 5 days. But, for the past 15 years or so, it's been very predictable and has improved (like the syntactic sugar of "my" declarations in foreach or while expressions).

I seem to recall that Python not only didn't (doesn't?) have block scope, it tended (tends?) to produce a completely, blithely cryptic error message when the programmer assumes that it does have proper block scope and writes a program that fails as a result. Discovering that was memorable.

Python 3 has changed the "standard" traceback to be more readable and include more information, maybe that one is more to your liking: http://blog.ionelmc.ro/2014/08/03/the-most-underrated-featur...

One weirdness I encountered recently with nested functions:

  sub a {
    my $v;
    sub b {
      # captures only the first
      # instance of $v
    }
  }

This is because named subroutines are created once and variable captures are resolved at that time. I expected the more normal capture semantics you get with anonymous subs, like

  sub a {
    my $v;
    my $b = sub {
      # a new $b each time
      # captures each $v
    }
  }

The lexical scoping rules are precisely what causes this behaviour. The first example defines a nested function which has access to the variables in scope when defined (as you remark).

It's little different than this block defined outside of any function:

  {
  my $v;

  sub b { ... }
  }

Whereas an anonymous function is "defined" each time the enclosing scope is evaluated.

For more info, see: http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=389319

HTH

Thanks - useful point. But, I think that's more of an oddity of nested, named subs than anything else. The usual anonymous subs close as you'd expect (as you say).

> most of the time you're just dealing with code that might have a few sigils preceeding an identifier

I personally like sigils but, afaict, one can almost eliminate sigils in Perl 6 if one wants to.

Instead of $ sigil on scalar (single item) variables:

    a scalar =$= 42; # uses a fictional feature [1]

    say scalar;
    # 42

    scalar--; # decrement scalar

    scalar.say;
    # 41

Instead of % sigil on dicts (hashes):

    a dict =%= pi, i, e, now;

    say dict;
    # 2.71828182845905 => Instant:1435371876.325275,
    # 3.14159265358979 => 0+1i

    dict<pi>--;

    say dict.invert;
    # Instant:1435371876.325275 => 2.71828182845905
    # -1+1i => 3.14159265358979

Instead of @ on lists (arrays):

    a list =@= 10,20;

    say list >>+>> scalar;
    # 51 61

> I'd say the real issue is weak typing

In Perl 6 everything is (implicitly) nominally typed. One can optionally add explicit nominal type info.

It's certainly not HoTT and it has weaknesses that look unlikely to be addressed this year[2] but it's also one of the most advanced gradual typing implementations in any language.[3]

> implicit conversions between primitives

In Perl 6 conversions are generally explicit. If you name a couple implicit conversions in Perl 5 we could compare with Perl 6 (and, say, Python).

> using strings for many things where some more specialized data type would have been more appropriate

Can you provide an example?

> variable scope problems.

Scope features are very much a Perl 6 strength.

Again, perhaps describe a scenario where it's a weakness in Perl 5 and we can compare with Perl 6 and perhaps other langs?

> manipulating the VM's internals

The "reference" Rakudo Perl 6 compiler is a front-end to the NQP compiler toolchain. The NQP toolchain targets several VMs including the JVM. It does not manipulate the JVM's internals!

(NQP also targets MoarVM[4] but it uses the same principled ways to communicate with MoarVM that it does with the JVM.)

> and generating code at runtime and all kinds of other extremely dynamic behaviors.

Ah yes. Perl 6 has upped the ante on that. It is statically compiled in a lot of ways but it also has very powerful dynamic features, carefully designed. [5]

----

[1] I made up the term 'a'. In reality it's 'constant'. But that name is kinda surprising for the purposes to which I've put it -- the terms it declares aren't very constant! But 'constant' is much longer than 'a' and this sort of declaration is supposed to be harder than using other scopes such as 'my' or 'has'. See http://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2015-06-27#i_10812609 and following for a tiny bit more discussion.

[2] https://hackertimes.com/item?id=9771718

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradual_typing

[4] http://moarvm.org

[5] See this example and my comment about static/dynamic aspects of Perl 6 interop: http://www.reddit.com/r/perl6/comments/399o82/python_matplot...