.
Mike
- Original Message -
From: Nick Stankus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: Perl, the new generation
Someone looking at that is going to think they have to know all that
to
be
effective.
Who reads the book. I just use
Adam Turoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's also amazing how long some people can go without seeing a
statement modifier or non-default delimiters like s{}{};. In the
micro view, that's OK. In the macro view, it leads to Perl Mongers
meetings that feel more like AA:
Which reminds me, must
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] whispere
d:
| All Perl programmers, including lone ones, really should be using CPAN as
| much as they can, which means that the parts of the language needed to use
| CPAN modules are part of the understanding you need.
This
What is Camel4 going to look like for perl 6? What is going to be required
knowledge for perl6. Let's just start by looking at Apoc2. To use perl,
you'll have to know Unicode, you'll have to know OO, you'll have to
understand references. Those are three very technical concepts that make
Stephen P. Potter writes:
For example, take a look at Camel1. It was a small book; you could carry
it around without building up huge biceps. You could reasonable read it in
a couple of days and get started with perl. I tried to get us to maintain
that in Camel2, but it grew to almost 700
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Trond Michelsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] whis
pered:
| You don't need to know any of the modules in CPAN to use perl, but once
| you learn how to use search.cpan.org, your productivity will most
| probably increase dramatically. Just like knowing how to use the
|
Someone looking at that is going to think they have to know all that to
be
effective.
Who reads the book. I just use it as reference. I am not the best Perl guru
in the world, but I can program everything I need perl to do. If I ever need
help...it is back to the Perl Camel Book. 2nd
Stephen P. Potter writes:
| You don't need to know any of the modules in CPAN to use perl, but once
| you learn how to use search.cpan.org, your productivity will most
| probably increase dramatically. Just like knowing how to use the
| documentation will make you more productive.
The
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Jarkko Hietaniemi [EMAIL PROTECTED] whispered
:
| Ummm, I must have missed the have to know Unicode, have to to know OO,
| have to know references part in the Apoc2. Could you show it to me?
Atoms- Unicode. If everything is Unicode, you're going to have
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Nathan Torkington [EMAIL PROTECTED] whi
spered:
| This is off-topic for perl6.
Objection, your honor! This is a logical extention of part of the
discussion. If we're discussing what is wrong with perl5 to make perl6
better differentiating between
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 11:24:45AM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
You are also saying that OOP is now required, because many/most CPAN
modules use OOP.
This is a piece of FUD along the lines of inline POD slows code down
that keeps people fearful of CPAN and I'd really rather see die. To
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 12:22:56PM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
For example, take a look at Camel1. It was a small book; you could carry
it around without building up huge biceps. You could reasonable read it in
a couple of days and get started with perl. I tried to get us to maintain
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 07:16:36PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Sean Burke wrote up an excellent article about OO for module users
which I thought was on perl.com but I can't find at the moment. Maybe
it was in TPJ.
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 12:55:55PM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
Atoms- Unicode. If everything is Unicode, you're going to have to grok
Unicode (at least tangentally) to be able to use perl.
Bah. Rubbish, no more than you need to grok Unicode to use Perl 5.6.
Do you know what data of yours
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 08:08:40PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 12:55:55PM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
Atoms- Unicode. If everything is Unicode, you're going to have to grok
Unicode (at least tangentally) to be able to use perl.
Bah. Rubbish, no more than you
Stephen P. Potter writes:
Objection, your honor! This is a logical extention of part of the
discussion. If we're discussing what is wrong with perl5 to make perl6
better differentiating between philosophies is quite on target.
The corner of the discussion about search.cpan.org and broken
Stephen P. Potter writes:
Atoms- Unicode. If everything is Unicode, you're going to have to grok
Unicode (at least tangentally) to be able to use perl.
Others have well dealt to this.
RFC 161- Everything becomes an object. Filehandles are more object
oriented in Perl6, and the special
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:58:07AM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
It's not so much that Perl shouldn't have data structures or modules.
I think what Stephen is saying (and he's not the only one) is that
the bare minimum amount of Perl you *must* know to be productive
is increasing. Either that,
Hmmm...ok, on thinking about it, I generally agree with you.
There is only one point that I would debate (and, as you'll see, there's
a solution for that one, too):
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Dave Storrs writes:
1) One of the great strengths of Perl is that
LOL!
No bias there then Nat :-)
Mike
- Original Message -
From: Nathan Torkington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: Perl, the new generation
Stephen P. Potter writes:
It seems to me that recently (the last two years or so
On Thu 17 May, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:58:07AM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
It's not so much that Perl shouldn't have data structures or modules.
I think what Stephen is saying (and he's not the only one) is that
the bare minimum amount of Perl you *must* know to
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:41:15PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Stephen P. Potter writes:
It seems to me that recently (the last two years or so) and
especially with 6, perl is no longer the SAs friend. It is no
longer a fun litle language that can be easily used to hack out
On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Grove wrote:
For me, it's the bare minimum amount of Perl you must *use* to be productive
that I see increasing in our plans and discussions. I'm afraid of Perl
turning into a verbose monstrosity to please verbosity addicts of languages
whose only point of
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:14:57AM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
afraid of, and to express your concerns about it. However, the way that
you chose to do that (Once quick and dirty dies, Perl dies.) implies
that the only thing that Perl is good for is q-n-d
A veritable lesson in logic! Here's an
On Wednesday 16 May 2001 15:32, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Bryan C. Warnock writes:
I think the biggest fear isn't that Perl is going to grow out of its
niche, but that it's going to outgrow it. It's great that Perl has been
able to expand to be so many things to so many people, but not at
Dan == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dan People think they *must* know all the core bits of a language, and
Dan they think that consists of all the stuff we ship with perl. (And,
Dan let's face it, we ship a *lot* of stuff with perl) It's like you're
Dan not allowed to know only a part
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Dave Storrs writes:
SARCASM=EXTREME
Everyone, please try to stop the downhill descent of the conversation.
This is not just Dave, but others in the thread too.
For the record, the original post in this sequence came from David
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] whispered:
| Peter Scott writes:
| : So, I wonder aloud, do we want to signify that degree of change with a more
| : dramatic change in the name?
|
| I'm inclined to think that people will be more likely to migrate if
| they
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:01:47PM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
It seems to me that recently (the last two years or so) and especially with
6, perl is no longer the SAs friend. It is no longer a fun litle language
that can be easily used to hack out solutions to problems.
See, I have a
David Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perl 5 is far from stagnant--please don't bend the truth to fit your
points. My impression is that there's quite a bit more constructive
activity on p5p than there was a year ago.
I've stopped paying attention to P5P except for keeping an eye on
This is a long shot, but here goes.
I was thinking about Perl 6 this morning while jogging (blithely ignoring
the forest scenery). It occurred to me that what appears to be emerging as
the new language embodies bigger changes than I ever anticipated - which is
great, software should improve
Hey, we could call it Perl 9 from Outer Space. No wait...
Larry
At 05:36 PM 5/10/01 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Version numbers are, at best, an indication of the magnitude change.
At worst they are a cheap marketing ploy. I've always liked that
Perl's version numbers are relatively free of marketing hoopla (the
jump from perl3 to perl4 notwithstanding).
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Perl, the new generation
This is a long shot, but here goes.
I was thinking about Perl 6 this morning while jogging (blithely ignoring
the forest scenery). It occurred to me that what appears to be
emerging as
the new language embodies bigger changes than I ever
Square Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 12:44 PM
To: Peter Scott
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Perl, the new generation
Peter Scott writes:
: So, I wonder aloud, do we want
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 12:56:36PM -0400, David Grove wrote:
Of course your Perl 5 programs will still work, as long as you
convert them to Perl 6. We'll have a parser that will be able to do
this. Of course, you will have to write it yourself.
I think there's a communications foul-up here.
Nathan Wiger writes:
: Maybe the name Perl should be dropped altogether?
No. The Schemers had to do a name change because the Lisp name had
pretty much already been ruined by divergence.
: (Granted, that's not what I'd prefer, but the changes are getting
: rather massive and are starting to
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:55:36AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
If you talk that way, people are going to start believing it. The
typical Perl 6 program is not going to look very different from the
typical Perl 5 program. The danger of us continually talking about
the things we want to change
If you talk that way, people are going to start believing it. The
typical Perl 6 program is not going to look very different from the
typical Perl 5 program. The danger of us continually talking about
the things we want to change is that people will forget to notice the
tremendous amount
* Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05/10/2001 11:57]:
Nathan Wiger writes:
: Maybe the name Perl should be dropped altogether?
No. The Schemers had to do a name change because the Lisp name had
pretty much already been ruined by divergence.
: (Granted, that's not what I'd prefer, but the
Perl 5 is far from stagnant--please don't bend the truth to fit your
points. My impression is that there's quite a bit more constructive
activity on p5p than there was a year ago.
I've stopped paying attention to P5P except for keeping an eye on the
possibility of a new surprise upgrade from
- Original Message -
From: David Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peter Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 5:47 PM
Subject: RE: Perl, the new generation
.
.
.
Corporate users do not think in terms of neat and novel, they think in
terms
of how much work
David Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unless Perl 6 is capable of parsing and running that 99.9% (or higher)
of Perl 5 scripts originally foretold, I foresee a far worse outcome for
Perl 6 than has happened for an almost universally rejected 5.6 and
5.6.1.
Most people don't adopt .0
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 03:58:41PM -0400, David Grove wrote:
it's been 13 months since 5.6 was released,
and two commercial entities have so far accepted it:
ActiveState and SuSE.
a complete, barefaced lie.
To be a lie, it must be purposeful. I am not above error, however.
Who do you
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 04:41:09PM -0400, David Grove wrote:
My information on this comes from discussion (asking directly) in undernet
#linux. If this is in error, tell it to them.
An IRC channel, in ERROR?! On Undernet no less?! THE DEUCE YOU SAY!! ;)
Next thing you're going to tell me
At 09:20 AM 5/10/01 -0700, I wrote:
At some point, the Perl 6 cognomen will have attracted enough inertia that
we couldn't reasonably change it even if we wanted to. Maybe that time
has already come. Maybe not. Can't hurt to raise the question.
I retract the last sentence.
--
Peter Scott
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 04:41:09PM -0400, David Grove wrote:
Anywhere else? :)
FreeBSD comes to mind, among others.
Hm. You initially restricted your survey to commercial vendors, but now
you are moving the goalposts.
Can we get back to the subject now?
Certainly. The subject was whether
At 11:11 PM 5/10/01 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 04:41:09PM -0400, David Grove wrote:
Anywhere else? :)
FreeBSD comes to mind, among others.
Hm. You initially restricted your survey to commercial vendors, but now
you are moving the goalposts.
Can we get back to the
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 10:00:13PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:49:30PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
We need to keep syntactic compatibility, which means we need
to keep the
ability for perl6 to USE PERL5.
I think you're in violent agreement here. This
49 matches
Mail list logo
