Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]

2001-05-17 Thread Mark Fowler
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote: I don't think Perl 6 can be a tremendous leap forward, not because of RFC's along the lines of `Perl must stay Perl', but because the next leap forward is VisualPerl which will be as much about IDE as core language. Now lets not get hung up on the

Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]

2001-05-17 Thread Piers Cawley
Greg McCarroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Leon Brocard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Coo, coo, see the fabled perl6, remark how it looks just like perl5, wonder if anything's different and if there's a point to all this ;-) Blasphemy ahead .. I don't think Perl 6 can be a

Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]

2001-05-17 Thread Piers Cawley
Paul Makepeace [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:06:22PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: And just to complete my final blasphemy, Visual Basic, may have a shit language behind it, it may have performance problems, it may be very limited and may force you to implement the

Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]

2001-05-17 Thread Greg McCarroll
* Simon Cozens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:06:22PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: of RFC's along the lines of `Perl must stay Perl', but because the next leap forward is VisualPerl which will be as much about IDE as core language. Now lets not get hung up on the IDE

Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]

2001-05-17 Thread Greg McCarroll
* Nathan Torkington ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Greg McCarroll writes: I don't think Perl 6 can be a tremendous leap forward, not because of RFC's along the lines of `Perl must stay Perl', but because the next leap forward is VisualPerl which will be as much about IDE as core language.

Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]

2001-05-17 Thread Philip Newton
Paul Makepeace wrote: The - to . conversion [...] will be a wonderful thing. To be honest, I never understood the point of that conversion. Is it an attempt to make Perl look more like VB? Or like Java? Or trying to save keystrokes? Simplify the lexer? The array seemed fine to me the way it

Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]

2001-05-17 Thread David Cantrell
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 01:26:17AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote: I tried to use VB once. I kept thinking Why isn't this as good as Interface Builder is on NeXTSTEP? Actually, I find myself thinking that when I use almost any IDE... Heh. Same here, although if you discount Interface Builder, VB

Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]

2001-05-17 Thread Damian Conway
Now I'm not buying into the argument on either side, but it does remind me of a lovely quote by Australian programming legend Alan Kennington: Eiffel is some sort of avant-garde French computing movement which believes that programming is reactionary and oppressive.

Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]

2001-05-17 Thread Dave Hodgkinson
David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Indys are very nice indeed. However, I think I got a pretty good deal when I swapped mine for a loaded Sun SS1000e :-) Sellout! -- Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star

Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]

2001-05-17 Thread Chris Benson
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 10:13:23AM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: p.s. I have never used Delphi. scores 8/10 as a BD language (it *is* related to Pascal :-) scores 9/10 for does-what-you-expect OTOH the documentation (when I used it) scored -1. (Whereas VB3 (or was it VB4) scored -INFINITY

Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]

2001-05-17 Thread Dave Hodgkinson
Robin Szemeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: you see quite a few go on Yahoo .. Indys seem to be about 100 quid, OK, that's slightly more than the shipping from Londres to Baaf... -- Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star

Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]

2001-05-17 Thread Paul Makepeace
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 01:27:32AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote: Delphi rules. Still not as good Interface Builder + Objective C + AppKit + NeXTSTEP... Having used both, I totally disagree. YMMV of course :-) Interface Builder is damn good but plenty of stupid shit in it (why am I setting

Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]

2001-05-17 Thread Paul Makepeace
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 12:59:53PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote: Paul Makepeace wrote: The - to . conversion [...] will be a wonderful thing. To be honest, I never understood the point of that conversion. Is it an attempt to make Perl look more like VB? Or like Java? Or trying to save

Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]

2001-05-16 Thread Nathan Torkington
Leon Brocard writes: Coo, coo, see the fabled perl6, remark how it looks just like perl5, wonder if anything's different and if there's a point to all this ;-) Jihad on Leon, anyone? :-) perl6 is supposed to look a lot like perl5. If it didn't, we'd call it Python or something like that.

Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]

2001-05-16 Thread Greg McCarroll
* Leon Brocard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Coo, coo, see the fabled perl6, remark how it looks just like perl5, wonder if anything's different and if there's a point to all this ;-) Blasphemy ahead .. I don't think Perl 6 can be a tremendous leap forward, not because of RFC's along the

Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]

2001-05-16 Thread Paul Makepeace
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:06:22PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: And just to complete my final blasphemy, Visual Basic, may have a shit language behind it, it may have performance problems, it may be very limited and may force you to implement the guts as of any serious program you write as