On Apr 22, 2014, at 7:21 PM, Damian Conway <dam...@conway.org> wrote:

>> It's an awesome language, which is exactly the problem. "Inspiring
>> awe" is not far from inducing panic and terror, especially in people
>> who aren't feeling too confident in the first place. We want to be
>> accessible to the people who start looking nervous when the modulus
>> operator is added to the basic four mathematical signs as operators.
> This is an important point. And an area in which I believe Perl 6 can
> excel. I do think it will be possible to specify (and even enforce) suitable
> subsets of the language, to make it approachable by the easily over-awed.
>> Sorry if I'm being boringly repetitive, but I do see complexity as a
>> barrier to world domination.
> No, it's an important point. I get very excited about the power and
> sophistication of Perl 6. But I also get very excited about the
> straightforwardness and simplicity it can offer. It's important that we
> market both aspects...and to the right audiences.
> For example, at OSCON this year I'm concentrating on the simplicity
> of Perl 6:
>    http://www.oscon.com/oscon2014/public/schedule/detail/33839
> Damian

One area that Perl dominated early on (but python has been making tremendous 
strides in): science.  For example Perl (4/5) was the go-to language for 
biologists simply b/c it was easy to pick up and get started right away.  

Basically, anything that requires munging tons of data in somewhat defined but 
non-standard formats (think: DNA sequence formats like GenBank, FASTA, FASTQ, 
etc) would be a good target, particularly if one can define grammars to parse 
such data that could be passed on to various actions.  That’s only the start, 
really (NCI, types, roles, etc).


Reply via email to