At 01:22 PM 9/25/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>The more ubiquitous Perl the language (as opposed to perl the
>>implementation) is, the better off we all are. I, for one, would be
>>*thrilled* if once we got a solid reference doc out for perl 6 someone else
>>besides us wrote an interpreter for it.
>Well between us you make 1.
>
>As soon as you get many implementations, you start to get into
>the portability nightmare. We differ on how much of a problem
>we think that is.
Multiple implementations are good. All the languages that've had long-term
viability have had multiple implementations. (Things like C, Fortran, and
VOBOL spring to mind. C++ and Java look to duplicate that as well)
>>The AL as it stands allows, and encourages, all sorts of folks to use perl
>>in their products, and embed it inside them. (Yes, we've failed them
>>technically in the embedding arena, but that's a separate issue) This is
>>good. Really.
>
>Actually the current license discourages embedding Perl. Very
>specifically it allows embedding Perl but only if you embed the
>whole thing. If an AL style license is kept then it needs to
>be more flexible in this regard. (I was more flexible in this
>regard!)
I'm not sure of that. I think you could get by embedding the perl code in
the executable if you didn't actually call it perl (saying you were
perl-compatible or something would be OK), but I may be wrong.
Regardless, embedding was a serious pain. I aim to fix the technical side,
and I'm glad you're addressing the licensing side. :)
>>The language should be all over, and that's what's important. The
>>implementation's basically, well, an implementation detail, and really
>>isn't important.
>
>It isn't important until you try to run my script and it doesn't.
>
>This is the nightmare of JavaScript. This is one of the reasons
>that I prefer Perl over Java. This is...you know my opinion.
>But I recognize the benefit as well. I don't think it is a
>*bad* choice, but I think it is a choice to be made with open eyes
>and recognition of the tradeoffs.
Believe me, as someone working mainly on a platform who's C compiler
*isn't* GCC, I'm well aware of the 'fun' one can have with multiple
implementations of the same language.
I'm still firmly convinced that it's a profoundly good idea. Yes, having
the source freely available takes off some of the pressures we might
otherwise see with a closed-source language (Though for all that it's
nasty, Visual Basic manages reasonably well that way), but we really won't
see perl fully mature until its development is ultimately out of the hands
of any one group.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
