* Nathan Torkington ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Greg McCarroll writes:
> > I don't think Perl 6 can be a tremendous leap forward, not because
> > of RFC's along the lines of `Perl must stay Perl', but because
> > the next leap forward is VisualPerl which will be as much about
> > IDE as core language. Now lets not get hung up on the IDE bit
> > of that statement, its more about how people build programs
> > than the interface they use, the IDE merely focuses them towards
> > a certain methodology of building software.
> Are you drunk, McCarroll, or just smoking crack? :-)

Me drink?, and my point was about what would shock/surprise
the masses with Perl 6, but as we've started down the visual
component crack smoking road lets continue ....

> It's a wonderful fantasy, but the only type of problem I solve that
> could fit that approach are those tedious CGI+database CRUD things.

I see it more for data munging and small tools. I also think its got
potential for allowing the unwashed masses to build their data
munging / general tools without knowing too much Perl.

> Everything else requires original thought and invention, and

Sure and if it can be reused, implement it as a component so
it can later be snapped together by someone who will never appreciate

> I'll chew
> my left nut off before I believe that the fantasy of assembly-line
> software allows for that.

Can we hold you to that? It would give us a good name for the project

 gnat   = gnat needs another testicle ;-)

> > the most impressive implementation of a programming language/dialect
> > that I have ever seen
> "It may be a steamy sweaty pile of diarrhoea, but it's an IMPRESSIVE
> steamy sweaty pile of diarrhoea."


p.s. I have never used Delphi.

Greg McCarroll                          http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Reply via email to