Re: Perl, the new generation
What is Camel4 going to look like for perl 6? What is going to be required knowledge for perl6. Let's just start by looking at Apoc2. To use perl, you'll have to know Unicode, you'll have to know OO, you'll have to understand references. Those are three very technical concepts that make Ummm, I must have missed the have to know Unicode, have to to know OO, have to know references part in the Apoc2. Could you show it to me? using perl to quickly throw things together much more difficult. And that's just Apoc2 -spp -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
Re: perl5 to perl6
In this thread I've heard both perl6 is too different from perl5 and perl6 is too similar to perl5, without anybody naming the specific things that are problems and suggesting solutions. The old adage about programmers being like cats, constantly at the wrong side of the door, or at the both sides of the argument at the same time? It must be a full moon or something :-) Nat -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
Re: Perl, the new generation
If you talk that way, people are going to start believing it. The typical Perl 6 program is not going to look very different from the typical Perl 5 program. The danger of us continually talking about the things we want to change is that people will forget to notice the tremendous amount of stuff that we aren't changing. Maybe, but for one I'm starting to wonder. TomC's rant rang true in my ears. How much can we change and still call it the same language? I'm not yet panicking, I'm just trying to hug some firm ground here. Larry -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
Re: State of PDD 0
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:43:14PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote: At 05:30 PM 2/20/01 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: At 02:15 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote: Bryan C. Warnock writes: Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there be a new one (perl-pdd)? I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of the list. Dan? I've been thinking since I sent my last mail on this that we might actually want to leave the two (PDD RFC) separate. Keep on with the RFCs for 'external' things,... I suggest that we clearly delineate the RFCs which were pre-deadline from the ones that are post-deadline. The advantage to having the original deadline was that it motivated many of us to get off our butts and fish or cut bait. If we're going to continue this process now, I move that: New RFCs be numbered starting from 1000 (easiest way to denote the difference); Old RFCs are frozen, and that means frozen. I have no idea how far Larry's got on digesting them and I really don't want to try and interfere with something that could be making its way down his small intestine. People should be free to write new RFCs that contradict older ones, or head off on some tangent, but please let's not keep refining the old ones, enough is enough. Strongly agreed. -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote: As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name. Likewise. What's wrong with builders? -- Johan -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
Re: This week on the perl6 mailing lists
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:48:27PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 08:57:02PM -0500, Bryan C . Warnock wrote: Particularly after this: http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?tag=ltnc "Innovation-- you keep using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means." Quite simple, really. Innovation, n. Any technology that can be called new (regardless of whether it is new) so that it can be added to the marketing material of our products and therefore result in more money for our Leader. -- Microsoft Encarta Dictionary, internal edition -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
Re: Critique available
Comparing the perl6-language and the perl5-porters simply doesn't fly. It's not even comparing apples and oranges, it's like comparing a busy market place and a faculty lunch. In the first case we are talking about a crowd of people most of which do not know each other, do not know what the people how to offer, do not not whether to trust the snake oil dealer, whether the pumpkins being sold are fresh or rotten, whether the trinkets of the eloquent short brawny fellow with pieces of cork hanging from his hat really are gold, whether to avoid the two people bargaining over the price camel hot dog or to join them, and so on. A busy mayhem, lost of people hawking their wares, lots of people buying them, haggling over them, laughing at false premises, lots of fun. There maybe a lot noise but it's undirected and can be safely ignored for the most part. In the second case we are talking about people that have been doing together the same thing for a long time. They know what has been attempted in the past, they know the existing art, they each know their each own piece of the lore. But they also know each other well, maybe too well, how to tick each other off, resulting in some megaton class lambasting once in a while. They have developed strong opinions over the years and they have their own agendas, and things they care deeply about. Now, could we please move on with more constructive discussion of what to do in the futurepas Nat requested? -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
Re: Critique available
I agree partly, but not fully. Where I agree is that we did a lousy job in having tighter control by not requiring authors to record the opposing opinions or pointed out deficiencies, not requiring more work on the implementation side, not bestowing more power to the chairs/moderators, and so on. The whole term RFC might have been a bad move. But I certainly don't agree on that the whole process was a fiasco. Firstly, now, for the first time in the Perl history, we opened up the floodgates, so the speak, and had at least some sort of (admittedly) weakly formalized protocol of submitting ideas for enhancement, instead of the shark tank known as perl5-porters. (On the other hand, we need shark tanks. If an idea wasn't solid enough to survive the p5p ordeal by fire, it probably wasn't solid enough to begin with. In p5p you also ultimately had to have the code to prove your point, re the puny IMPLEMENTATION sections.) Secondly, what was -- and still is -- sorely missing form the p5p process is writing things down, dammit. The first round of the Perl 6 RFCs certainly weren't shining examples of how RFCs should be written, but at least they were written down. Unless an idea is written down, it is close to impossible to discuss it in any serious terms in the email media. Thirdly, to continue on the first point, now we have a record of the kind of things people want. Not perhaps a well-thought out list, quite often suggested in a much too detailed way, trying to shoehorn new un-Perlish ways into Perl, suggesting things that clearly do not belong to a langugage core, breaking backward compatibility, and other evil things. But now we have an idea of the kind of things (both language-wise and application/ata-wise) people want to do in Perl, or don't like about Perl. Based on that feedback we (errr, Larry) can design Perl 6 to be more flexible, to accommodate as many of those requests in some way. Not all of them, and most of them will probably be implemented in some more Perlish way than suggested, and I guess often in some much more lower level way than the RFC submitter thought it should be done. Without the RFC process we wouldn't have had that feedback. I vehemently disagree with the quip that we would have been better off by everybody just sending Larry their suggestions. Now we did have a process: it was public, it was announced, it began, we had rules, we had discussions, it had a definite deadline. We certainly expected (I certainly expected) RFCs of deeper technical level, with more implementation plands or details, or with more background research on existing practices in other languagesor application areas. But obviously our expectations were wrong, and we will have to work what we got. -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
Re: Critique available
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 03:42:41PM -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote: On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote: When an article in perl.com is so overwhelmingly negative about the work so far, do Yup. I can't see www.sun.com carrying an editorial saying effectively "Java: we are all going to hell in a handbasket". Well, maybe they are, precisely because of Java, but that's not the point here... you think that stirs confidence in what we're doing? To strive for balance, I think perl.com's home page should also have the links to Larry's ALS talk and slides. I know they are not a polished Definitely. collection of web pages, but they are still quite readable. They also give a different perspective to the RFC collection. An article emphasizing positive aspects of the process so far would also seem like a nice idea, but somebody'd have to write it :-). I think I will try my hand at this. -- Andy Dougherty[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dept. of Physics Lafayette College, Easton PA 18042 -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
how the FreeBSD project gets its core members
http://www.bsdtoday.com/2000/October/News306.html -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
Re: how the FreeBSD project gets its core members
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 04:35:42PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: http://www.bsdtoday.com/2000/October/News306.html Oops, sorry about that, didn't read Ziggy's message first... -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
Re: Reading list
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 03:56:00AM -0700, Carlos Ramirez wrote: Here's a listing of 'recommended reading' gathered from this list (provided by Nat). I'm not sure if this will be a permanent place for this link, but for now you can get it here. If i left out a book or if you have a new suggestion you can contact me or post it here and I will add them as soon as i can. http://www.perldoc.com/readinglist.pl A little bit esoteric and hard to find (currently out of stock, I'm afraid) but still a nice reminder that there are string algorithms other than just simple substring search. String Searching Algorithms Graham A Stephen World Scientific ISBN 981-02-1829-X P.S. The "Structure and Inter..." is missing a final "s". -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
