>That's the basic goal behind my RFCs for moving things to modules. In
>general, I hope to make the language cleaner, easier to learn and use, and
>easier to extend.
"Clean"? What is "clean"? Huh? And since when has Perl ever been
supposed to be "clean"? I've got plenty of quotage from Larry to the
contrary.
You must now define objective and quantifiable criteria for what
does and thus what does not constitute:
* Making a language cleaner
* Making a language easier to learn
* Making a language easier to use
* Making a language easier to extend
Provide working frameworks for those in concrete terms that can be
applied to your proposals in a non-feel-good fashion, one that is
discretely measurable by any party, and only then we can see whether
they actually make any sense. Right now, they seem like random
fantasies without any basis in reality.
Note that it is more important that a language be easier to use
than anything else you've listed.
>If at the same time the language became better
>performing because of a removal of some of the core, all the better. As
>you say, 200 lines isn't much. But combine that with the IPC, the
>environment, the system, etc it all adds up.
What the bloody blazes are you going to do with a language that can't
do systems work? Number crunching, I suppose. Oh wait--you already
stripped that out, too. :-(
Remember: big languages make small programs, and small language make
big programs. Larry in observing this has clearly weighed in on the
side of small programs. Micro-language people always have forth.
--tom
