On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 02:33:53PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> Simon Cozens wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 11:22:35AM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> > > [C++]
> >
> > > It's nearly as portable,
> >
> > Uhm. Is this actually true?
>
> I don't know. Sounds reasonable! :-)
>
> Aside from lame-o solutions like C-front and cross-compiling,
> I'd say, screw 'em if they don't have a C++ compiler.
I restrain myself from the obvious vulgar reply.
> What do you mean by fragile? Certainly there are solid,
> "industrial-grade" C++ compilers for some platforms.
So you plan on limiting Perl to be running only on those platforms?
Good luck on your crusade.
> > Why have nearly as fast, when you can have as fast?
>
> I can think of several things I'd be willing to trade a little
> bit of speed for. Would I be using Perl if I didn't feel that way?
You seem hell-bent to gain popularity and support, don't you.
> In my "real" life, I work on a large system (around 100,000 lines),
> and I truly shudder to think how much more grotesque and difficult
> to maintain it would be if it were written in C instead of C++.
I believe you, I'm happy for you, but that's really irrelevant.
I wish all the people suggesting 'Perl 6 should be written in X' would
read carefully the 'Supported Platforms' section in perlport (5.6.0)
and make a checklist: does their wonderful X (a) exist (b) work (c)
work effectively on all those platforms? If the answer is 'no', you
are taking Perl away from the people who want to use Perl on that
platform. As simple as that.
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
