Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]
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 IDE bit of that statement, its more about how people build programs than the interface they use, the IDE merely focuses them towards a certain methodology of building software. Greg, I was wondering if you've used Glade with Perl. I think it's everything that VisualBasic is. It allows you very simple access to the vast range of really complex components and provides very simple access to the code both via generated 'only edit me if you know what you're doing' code and 'ignore the rest of the program and just write what you want me to do when you click here' callbacks. This of course comes with all the advantages and disadvantages of such an approach. It's very easy and quick to build a GUI that functions well and stops you making so many GUI bloopers, but it's a very fixed approach that doesn't lend itself to too much dynamic GUI creation. Later. Mark. -- perl is my itch (Simon, did you recently do an advertising campaign for divorce laywers?)
Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]
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 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 IDE bit of that statement, its more about how people build programs than the interface they use, the IDE merely focuses them towards a certain methodology of building software. 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 C/C++ DLLs but is still the most impressive implementation of a programming language/dialect that I have ever seen, barring one or two domain specific languages, such as the visualisation software which I have forgotten the name of. 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... -- Piers Cawley www.iterative-software.com
Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]
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 guts as of any serious program you write as C/C++ DLLs but is still the most impressive implementation of a programming language/dialect that I have ever seen, You clearly haven't used Delphi. It is *streets* ahead of VB. Not only that they provide source to their components. Not only that, Object Pascal is possibly one of the best practical OO languages in existence. Their component model just rocks. And their editor is fantastic. Delphi rules. Still not as good Interface Builder + Objective C + AppKit + NeXTSTEP... -- Piers Cawley www.iterative-software.com
Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]
* 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 bit of that statement So, let me get this right - you want to discuss something which is equal value IDE and core language, without discussing the IDE, yes? :) Yip, i want to discuss the line down the middle between the IDE and the Language/Engine. The original post meant to state that the only way Perl could leap forward in a way that would shock/surprise people would be to significantly change the way people worked with the language. Object orientation was one such shift, Visual Basic/Delphi was another such shift (and i'm not just talking about the GUI builder bit). In fact high level languages with text editors is another. -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]
* 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. Now lets not get hung up on the IDE bit of that statement, its more about how people build programs than the interface they use, the IDE merely focuses them towards a certain methodology of building software. Are you drunk, McCarroll, or just smoking crack? :-) Me drink?, and my point was about what would shock/surprise the masses with Perl 6, but as we've started down the visual component crack smoking road lets continue It's a wonderful fantasy, but the only type of problem I solve that could fit that approach are those tedious CGI+database CRUD things. I see it more for data munging and small tools. I also think its got potential for allowing the unwashed masses to build their data munging / general tools without knowing too much Perl. Everything else requires original thought and invention, and Sure and if it can be reused, implement it as a component so it can later be snapped together by someone who will never appreciate it. I'll chew my left nut off before I believe that the fantasy of assembly-line software allows for that. Can we hold you to that? It would give us a good name for the project gnat = gnat needs another testicle ;-) the most impressive implementation of a programming language/dialect that I have ever seen It may be a steamy sweaty pile of diarrhoea, but it's an IMPRESSIVE steamy sweaty pile of diarrhoea. Greg p.s. I have never used Delphi. -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]
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 was. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]
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 is very good indeed. I haven't done enough Delphi work to be qualified to talk about their interface, but first impressions were good. I like to think of VB and Java as doing the same sort of job. They're very good for the pretty interface bits, but need a Real Language to do the real work - C for VB, perl/python/C for Java. I was, however, thoroughly infuriated by Interface Builder on Mac OS X. It is not at all obvious how it should work with Project Builder. I am, however, more infuriated by OS X itself, and its updates which break everything. Grumble. Mutter. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david If a job's worth doing, it's worth dieing for
Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]
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. Instead, they see the future of computing as lying in broad strokes of the mouse to communicate the software developer's creative desires. The Eiffel system then writes a program for the computing artist. As is typical of French ideas, Eiffel appeals to those sections of the middle class eho can't remember what work was like, and don't particularly want to be reminded. ;-) Damian
Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]
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 http://www.deep-purple.com Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]
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 because it would permanently change the size of windows on it's own initiative and of course be trashed by every single piece of s/ware that installed a .DLL) -- Chris Benson if you can't do it in Perl in half-an-hour it's not worth doing.
Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]
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 http://www.deep-purple.com Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]
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 properties in awakeFromNib when I could set it in IB, but they're greyed out?) Paul, can't decide to love or hate Obj-C
Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]
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 keystrokes? Simplify the lexer? *tokes hard* _fewer characters, man!_ - makes my right wrist click since I never got the hang of the left shift key in a general way. It just looks... nicer. /imo Paul
Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]
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. The interesting bits are where it doesn't look like perl5 (optional types! operator and variable properties! new built-in porn!). Did I say porn? I meant data types. Nat
Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]
* 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 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 bit of that statement, its more about how people build programs than the interface they use, the IDE merely focuses them towards a certain methodology of building software. 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 C/C++ DLLs but is still the most impressive implementation of a programming language/dialect that I have ever seen, barring one or two domain specific languages, such as the visualisation software which I have forgotten the name of. Greg `the heretic' McCarroll -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: [gnat@frii.com: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2]
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 C/C++ DLLs but is still the most impressive implementation of a programming language/dialect that I have ever seen, You clearly haven't used Delphi. It is *streets* ahead of VB. Not only that they provide source to their components. Not only that, Object Pascal is possibly one of the best practical OO languages in existence. Their component model just rocks. And their editor is fantastic. Delphi rules. Paul
