On Apr 27, 2005, at 6:39 AM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 10:48, Luke Palmer wrote:
Aaron Sherman writes:
The reasons I don't use English in P5:
* Variable access is slower
Hmm, looks to me like $INPUT_RECORD_SEPARATOR is faster. (Actually
they're the same: on each run
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 14:38, Luke Palmer wrote:
There's still a lot of premature optimization going on [...]
I'm surely guilty of one of them. I feel like the autothreading
semantics of junctions will be way to expensive without the compiler
knowing whether there a junction in a particular
Aaron Sherman writes:
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 14:38, Luke Palmer wrote:
There's still a lot of premature optimization going on [...]
I'm surely guilty of one of them. I feel like the autothreading
semantics of junctions will be way to expensive without the compiler
knowing whether there
Aaron Sherman wrote:
As a side note, I'd like to suggest that English is just rubbing
people's noses in the fact that they're not allowed to program in their
native tongue. Names might be less in-your-face.
Why are we even having to say use English or Names or whatever? Why
not just make
On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 13:52, gcomnz wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
As a side note, I'd like to suggest that English is just rubbing
people's noses in the fact that they're not allowed to program in their
native tongue. Names might be less in-your-face.
Why are we even having to say use
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 10:48, Luke Palmer wrote:
Aaron Sherman writes:
The reasons I don't use English in P5:
* Variable access is slower
Hmm, looks to me like $INPUT_RECORD_SEPARATOR is faster. (Actually
they're the same: on each run a different one won, but just barely like
Aaron Sherman writes:
Ever since I stopped caring about speed, I've started to write code
almost twice as fast. And the code itself isn't slower.
Ok, so let's separate the premature optimization from removing massive
bottlenecks from code. When I can get a reporting program that takes
On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 22:24 -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
Not exactly a fair comparison, since it's common to not use English
due to the $ issue.
I suspect that if that was not the case, it would be used more.
The reasons I don't use English in P5:
* Variable access is slower
Aaron Sherman writes:
On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 22:24 -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
Not exactly a fair comparison, since it's common to not use English
due to the $ issue.
I suspect that if that was not the case, it would be used more.
The reasons I don't use English in P5
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:45:14PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: Well, only if you stick to a standard dialect. As soon as you start
: defining your own macros, it gets a little trickier.
:
: Interesting, I hadn't considered that.
:
: Having a quick browse through some of the
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 01:25:15PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
: Juerd wrote:
: According to Wikipedia there are around 400 million native English
: speakers and 600 million people who have English as a second language.
: Should the remaining ~5.5 billion humans be exluded from writing
Larry Wall wrote:
Well, only if you stick to a standard dialect. As soon as you start
defining your own macros, it gets a little trickier.
Interesting, I hadn't considered that.
Having a quick browse through some of the discussions about macros, many
of the macros I
Juerd wrote:
According to Wikipedia there are around 400 million native English speakers
and 600 million people who have English as a second language. Should the
remaining ~5.5 billion humans be exluded from writing perl code just so that
we English speakers can understand all the code that is
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Juerd wrote:
Seriously, is there some reason that we would not provide a
Language::Russian and Language::Nihongo? Given Perl 6, it would even
[snip]
Because providing it leads to its use, and when it gets used, knowing
English is no longer enough.
I have some code that uses
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 03:42:25PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
I don't think you can say (as Larry has) that you want to be able to
fully re-define the language from within itself and still impose the
constraint that it can't confuse people who don't know anything about
my module.
You might
Thomas Yandell skribis 2005-04-12 13:13 (+0100):
According to Wikipedia there are around 400 million native English speakers
and 600 million people who have English as a second language. Should the
remaining ~5.5 billion humans be exluded from writing perl code just so that
we English
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 02:38:01PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
(Still, having them around does help many people, and that's why I think
perldocs should perhaps come in several languages (as a different
project, so translation delays don't delay Perl releases)).
Should ?
Who is going to pay for all
Nicholas Clark skribis 2005-04-12 13:58 (+0100):
(Still, having them around does help many people, and that's why I think
perldocs should perhaps come in several languages (as a different
project, so translation delays don't delay Perl releases)).
Should ?
Yes, should. That's ideology,
On Tuesday 12 April 2005 07:42 am, David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 03:42:25PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
I'm not even sure I like the *possibility* of using non-ascii letters
in identifiers, even.
I think we already have Latin-1 in identifiers...
more's the pity.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 02:38:01PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
Thomas Yandell skribis 2005-04-12 13:13 (+0100):
According to Wikipedia there are around 400 million native English speakers
and 600 million people who have English as a second language. Should the
remaining ~5.5 billion humans be
I'm not even sure I like the *possibility* of using non-ascii letters
in
identifiers, even.
I think we already have Latin-1 in identifiers...
more's the pity.
According to Wikipedia there are around 400 million native English speakers
and 600 million people who have English as a
But your numbers are utterly useless, as they are counts of humans, not
programmers. I think that the number of programmers who don't understand
English is very small. They know English because historically, the
programmer's world has been English.
My point was that English speakers are in a
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:09:10PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
Nicholas Clark skribis 2005-04-12 13:58 (+0100):
(Still, having them around does help many people, and that's why I think
perldocs should perhaps come in several languages (as a different
project, so translation delays don't delay
Nicholas Clark skribis 2005-04-12 14:34 (+0100):
Yes, should. That's ideology, though.
I read should as a danger word. It's often person A describing a desirable
feature and intimating that unspecified other people B-Z ought to be
implementing it.
Please note that I try to not think about
Juerd skribis 2005-04-12 15:46 (+0200):
Please note that I try to not think about who's going to implement it at
all. That makes being creative and coming up with good ideas much, much
easier.
And to be honest, it makes coming up with bad ideas much easier than
that even :)
Juerd
--
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:46:03PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
Yes, if it is done, people are indeed involved, but if we all agree that
something must happen, that's not terribly relevant. And before we can
That's another dangerous word.
If stuff is only happening because people
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:48:02PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
Juerd skribis 2005-04-12 15:46 (+0200):
Please note that I try to not think about who's going to implement it at
all. That makes being creative and coming up with good ideas much, much
easier.
And to be honest, it makes coming up
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 07:42, David Cantrell wrote:
You might argue that Language::Dutch should never ship with the core...
that's a valid opinion, but SOMEONE is going to write it. It'd be a kind
of strange form of censorship for CPAN not to accept it. After all,
there's more than one way
I'm working on docs/S28draft.pod in the pugs project. And consulting perl5's
perlvar.pod, the issue of use English comes up. AFAICT from various sources,
little has been said about this
NOTE:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/perl.perl6.language/msg/fa241233bcfba024:
we've already been
David Vergin skribis 2005-04-11 9:44 (-0700):
What's the word. Will there be something like use English?
Yes, and it's the default :)
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 14:31, Juerd wrote:
David Vergin skribis 2005-04-11 9:44 (-0700):
What's the word. Will there be something like use English?
Yes, and it's the default :)
Yes, but it will be spelled:
use $*LANG ;-)
Seriously, is there some reason that we would not provide
Aaron Sherman skribis 2005-04-11 14:49 (-0400):
Yes, but it will be spelled:
use $*LANG ;-)
Seriously, is there some reason that we would not provide a
Language::Russian and Language::Nihongo? Given Perl 6, it would even
be quite valid for those modules to add aliases for all of the
On 2005-04-11 15:00, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not even sure I like the *possibility* of using non-ascii letters in
identifiers, even.
I agree that it would be a nightmare if project A used presu instead of
print everywhere, while project B used toon, etc. But non-ASCII
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 15:00, Juerd wrote:
Aaron Sherman skribis 2005-04-11 14:49 (-0400):
Yes, but it will be spelled:
use $*LANG ;-)
Seriously, is there some reason that we would not provide a
Language::Russian and Language::Nihongo? Given Perl 6, it would even
be quite valid for
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Yeah, I've never liked the _ syntax, I've always thought it was weird
(to say the least). I think grouping file tests would be much cleaner.
As long as you are okay with having to restat for 'or' clauses.
(There are work arounds, and supposedly 'this
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 07:32:42AM -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Yeah, I've never liked the _ syntax, I've always thought it was weird
(to say the least). I think grouping file tests would be much cleaner.
As long as you are okay with having to
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Russ Allbery wrote:
I've found the use of use English in code I had to maintain to be annoying
and unhelpful, and to actually degrade the maintainability of the code
Y'know, I couldn't have said this better myself. :-) I've always felt
that &quo
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 10:00:49AM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Y'know, I couldn't have said this better myself. :-) I've always felt
that "use English" was a waste of time and effort, a bandaid trying to
act as a tourniquet.
I think i
Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I find that I don't remember many of the less-frequently-used perlvars
(where less-frequently-used depends on the types of programs I write,
obviously). I certainly couldn't tell you off-hand the differences
among $ $ $( and $). I'd have to look
Simon Cozens wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 10:00:49AM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Y'know, I couldn't have said this better myself. :-) I've always felt
that "use English" was a waste of time and effort, a bandaid trying
Russ Allbery wrote:
I've found the use of use English in code I had to maintain to be annoying
and unhelpful, and to actually degrade the maintainability of the code
[snip]
I've yet to understand why I'd *want* to use English regularly; so far as
I can tell, it has essentially no benefit
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:39:32PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
My personal feeling is that I'd love "use English" to be expunged from
the language altogether - it's unnecessary bloat that only increases the
number of mistakes that people can make. But I'm not sure if I have the
gut
Adam Turoff wrote:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:39:32PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
My personal feeling is that I'd love "use English" to be expunged from
the language altogether - it's unnecessary bloat that only increases the
number of mistakes that people can make. But I'
My personal feeling is that I'd love "use English" to be expunged from
the language altogether - it's unnecessary bloat that only increases the
number of mistakes that people can make. But I'm not sure if I have the
guts to write that RFC just yet. ;-)
Are you tal
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 05:11:30PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Yes, but perhaps a little bit of both. Truthfully, I've always seen long
alternatives as useless bloat, not used widely over the long term. Once
people learn the shortcuts, they use them.
Expunging "use English" may wi
Adam Turoff wrote:
It has nothing to do with improving the syntax though, because everything
in use English is a variable that serves as a reference to some other
variable.
Yes, and that's why I really think it's a waste of time. ;-)
I'm not vehemently opposed to "use English"
46 matches
Mail list logo
