Larry Wall wrote:
This is one of those accomodations to the real world, like everyone
agreeing on a standard URI format.  We're really trying to keep
these module names close to what you'd see as the name of, say,
the corresponding .rpm file.  These modules have to have names that
work outside of Perl as well as inside, and {...} isn't going to fly
in general.


My concern is that we're solving problems that don't really exist in
real-world Perl usage. Are there really two competing authors of DBI?
Or, for any product, do two people really try to market "SuperWidget"?
No, one person just changes to "SuperGadget". And with URI's, one person
gets "amazon.com". Sorry, name taken.

I think we're actually *encouraging* problems by allowing long, clashing
names. Pretty soon all DBI modules will have to start with

   use DBI:TIMB;

Because "JEFFSTER" decided to upload his DBI (Derivative Binary Index)
module.

I think it will have the opposite effect of what we're trying to avoid.

: Not trying to rant (really), but one thing that is starting to bother me : about Perl 6 is that there's lots of changes that require special syntax : for one specific instance. It's making it really really difficult to : remember or generalize, two things that I thought we were trying to improve.

Well, you're painting with kind of a broad brush here.  If you can
point to other areas where we could usefully generalize without
getting too abstract for newbies, I'd be delighted to hear them.

The method syntax is starting to make my head spin, for one.

Many things, as a longtime Perl 4/5 programmer and CPAN goon, are
problematic because we're reusing established operators for completely
different ideas. From a design standpoint, I feel it's going to hamper
adoption of the language. People don't have the time (or interest) to
re-learn that much language, when Perl 5 works fantastic for 95% of
the cases.

-Nate

Reply via email to