On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 01:51:24PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Dan Sugalski writes:
> > People think they *must* know all the core bits of a language, and they
> > think that consists of all the stuff we ship with perl. (And, let's face
> > it, we ship a *lot* of stuff with perl) It's like you're not allowed to
> > know only a part of a language anymore--that's somehow ungeeky or something.
>
> Hmm, it'd be interesting to see a Map of Perl. Operators, functions,
> modules, features, etc. divided up according to topic and complexity
> and laid out around the central blob of "Basic Perl" that everyone
> knows (variables, assignment, math, chomp, printing, etc).
>
> I'm sure zealots (hi Simon!) would want to turn it into a curriculum
> guide, but I'm just thinking it'd be curious idle fun. It would also
> get across the idea that All Perl Is Not Made Equal and you don't have
> to learn everything before writing Hello World.
A cool idea but somewhat complicated by the fact that the map would
look somewhat different to people coming from different cultures.
Though 'map' or closures might look extremely cool to many, the LISP
people will yawn, regular expressions might look like marvellous
magic to non-UNIX (or non-CS-non-discrete-math people), et cetera.
> Nat
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
