iPike? It fits quite well in speech though... *burns in hell*
/ Peter Lundqvist (disjunkt)
Previous text:
2003-01-06 23:21: Subject: Re: Inconsistency.
I don't think the effect would only be temporary. A number of core issues could be fixed, and very detailed guidelines for the libraries could (and should) be written and enacted. The amount of ugliness that still could creep in after that would be a lot less. I'm pretty sure it would not ever become even a tenth of the current amount.
But you're entirely right that yet another language is anything but wanted today. The comparison with bash doesn't quite hold, though; the difference is that bash already has a large user base whereas Pike do not. I.e. there is comparatively little momentum to loose. Also, the users are probably more concerned with the compatibility aspects than the name since it's the incompatibilities that would make a transfer difficult.
Even so, a considerable effort has went into the branding of the name "Pike" so we must of course consider very carefully whether to release this new language under a new name, or perhaps the same name with "incompatible" printed all over it, or at all. That's why I thought it should only be very unofficial fork(*) for the time being. Just a toy that we can play with, to see how it turns out. Only when it starts to get very good we might begin to ponder how to release it.
*) With "fork" I mean "cvs fork", not "project fork" with its own web site etc.
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS