Here's a few comments from a thread allegedly savaged from Twitter [1]:
> So no choosing which Perl runs for /usr/bin/perl7 and which Perl /usr/bin/perl or and which is /usr/bin/perl like with some other languages? Will I be able to use 7's features without 'use v7' if I do name the executable 'perl7'? Does using 'use v7'm mean keeping all the cruft?
> Depends on what you mean by cruft
> The people actually doing work on perl core don't seem to find the 'cruft' problematic and if they do we can rip out stuff after a deprecation period like normal, so unless/until somebody who knows the core code objects I consider that an imaginary problem.
> yeah, i tried to point this out below as well think it should be mentioned that the email linked is from nicholas clark, so there's 3 core maintainers who hold that the important of cruft in perl code is in doubt
As one can see, the word "cruft" had actually become central to the discussion, even used with apostrophes - a sign that it hit a nerve somewhere? Maybe a better choice of words and overall tact would have been better in managing egos left and right.
As the one who asked that:
That wasn't even aimed at sawyer for one.
For the other it was an honest question because Perl has a LOT of cruft both in the code, in the tooling, in the docs, in the design and the syntax. As such it was important to ask which cruft the person was referring to before being able to answer.
The existence of cruft is not in any possible way in question for anyone involved. The only questions are: Which cruft are you talking about? Why do you think it's a problem? Do the people who touch said cruft daily agree it's a problem for <implementation of x> at the current point in time?
Now note also how the above compares to sawyer's central claim in his email:
> I had dared to say that people in Core recognize there is cruft in the language
And consider that such disconnects marked his communications for almost a year now.