On 4/10/07, Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On Monday 02 April 2007, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 05:06:34AM +0300, Shlomi Fish <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Hi Marc!
> >
> > May I forward my reply to the list?
>
> Yes, you may. Sorry for replying probably too late, thanks for asking
> first!
>

OK. Replying to two different list (which I'm not subscribed to).

> > > Well, to me, that very much sounds like "we do not openly admit it,
but
> > > we want to have Perl 5+1 working now, not whatever the Perl 6 people
> > > claim they will deliver 5 years ago".
> >
> > Heh. Well, I don't expect to be able to duplicate the Pugs
functionality
> > in a short time. :-). However, if you look at:
> >
> > http://www.shlomifish.org/rindolf/
>
> I wasn't clear then. Many peopel do not want a completely
> different-in-spirit language called "Perl6", but many people atcually
want
> a language very much in spirit as Perl 5, just with a few important
changes
> done.


Sorry, but the phrase "different-in-spirit" rankled me a little bit.  Perl 6
is definitely NOT different in spirit. In fact, Perl 6 is all about the
spirit of Perl but changing some of the details that have held it back. All
of the spirity things of Perl 5 are still present in Perl 6: TMTOWTDI, easy
things easy, hard things possible, etc.

-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to