RE: Perl6 -- what is in a name?
From: Melvin Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] At 01:52 PM 1/28/2002 -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote: From: Brent Dax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Aaron Sherman: # # I think the first guy that gets hired to maintain Perl6 code, # and think hey, I know Perl, no sweat will disagree with # you. I disagree. He'll see stuff he doesn't understand and try to consult perldoc on it, at which point he'll realize that he's working with Perl 6. Then he'll run out, get Camel IV, read it, and go back to work. Programmer is working with a better version of language, program is fixed, and ORA made fifty bucks. Everybody's happy. :^) Perhaps. Or perhaps he'll be like our company's lead C++ developers. They liked Perl4 well enough for a certain problem domain, saw some Perl5 code... and have tried to stay away from it ever since. Perl6 isn't going to make everyone happy. I have a hard time believing those C++ guys are really Perl lovers; I'ver never spoken to a Perl fan that didn't have dreams of a making the language even better than it already is; better OO in Perl, etc. Maybe they just have a huge unwieldy Perl4 app they don't wish to port. They were C++ lovers not Perl lovers. Perl was just a tool in their chest. In their minds Perl4 was a simple elegant swiss army knife for data munging. Perl5 was a new version of the same tool, but with too many extra whiz bang features to suit their fancy. But hey, Bryan Warnock said it best: Perl6 isn't going to make everyone happy. That's right, it isn't. Nor should it strive to. This isn't Aesops fable about The Miller, His Son, And Their Ass. http://www.literature.org/authors/aesop/fables/chapter-281.html
Perl6 -- what is in a name?
I'm going to just say this, and I ask that everyone who reads it take a deep breath, count to 10 and then respond if you wish. I was reading Apoc 4 and while marveling at the elegence of what Larry's doing to the language, I had an epiphany. Perl6 is simply not Perl. It's about as much Perl as Perl1 was AWK, C and Bourne Shell. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with Perl6, or that it's on the wrong track. I love it, and want to start using it tomorrow. However, it is clearly a new species, and just as we do not call Homo Sapiens Sapiens, Homo Erectus 3, I am beginning to come around to the opinion that Perl6 is a poor choice of name for this new language. Aesthetics asside, the name implies continuity, and while that continuity is planned in terms of compatibility modes and anscestral influence, is that really sufficient? If Python X.0 included a Perl5 parser/compat mode and had many Perl features added, would *it* be Perl6? Is it Perl6 simply because Larry is its author (this makes AWK, C2 by extension)? If the language is named Pint (an example, not a suggestion), would this help new users to accept its features on its own terms instead of bristling over every way in which they are not Perl's? I don't know, but it seemed like a topic worthy of some discussion. What I don't want to start (and I may have done so anyway) is a simple name war. If you feel emotionally attached to Perl, then fine, so am I. But if you feel that there is some compelling logic here that will affect the community, I would be very interested. If someone has already brought this up, I appologize. I read as much of this list as I can while still getting real work done ;-)
Re: Perl6 -- what is in a name?
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 10:44:19AM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote: I'm going to just say this, and I ask that everyone who reads it take a deep breath, count to 10 and then respond if you wish. I was reading Apoc 4 and while marveling at the elegence of what Larry's doing to the language, I had an epiphany. Perl6 is simply not Perl. I remember long ago being very concerned about this very eventuality. I'm glad that it's not the case. Perl 6 is most definitely Perl. The problem is that everything you've heard about Perl 6 so far is about bits of it that are different from Perl 5. The Apocalypses tell us what's going to change is Perl 6, and the Exegeses tell us how to use all the lovely new features. They don't tell you how to use the old features, because you already know that. All in all, this obscures the fact that the vast bulk of the language is the same. I even surprised myself by how few changes were required to turn a Perl 5 tokeniser into a Perl 6 tokeniser. Or maybe that's just because I designed it so well. :) -- Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Re: Perl6 -- what is in a name?
At 4:12 PM + 1/28/02, Simon Cozens wrote: On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 10:44:19AM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote: I'm going to just say this, and I ask that everyone who reads it take a deep breath, count to 10 and then respond if you wish. I was reading Apoc 4 and while marveling at the elegence of what Larry's doing to the language, I had an epiphany. Perl6 is simply not Perl. I remember long ago being very concerned about this very eventuality. I'm glad that it's not the case. Perl 6 is most definitely Perl. And just as a data point for that... Damian snagged some code from a few of us to do a 5-6 conversion on for a TPJ article to address this very issue. The code I handed to him had exactly no changes made. None. Could've run (and probably will run) the thing as-is into perl 6 and it would've run just as well as it did under perl 5. -- Dan --it's like this--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
FW: Perl6 -- what is in a name?
[I'm an idiot. I forgot to send this to the group, too.] Aaron Sherman: # I'm going to just say this, and I ask that everyone who reads # it take a # deep breath, count to 10 and then respond if you wish. # # I was reading Apoc 4 and while marveling at the elegence of # what Larry's # doing to the language, I had an epiphany. Perl6 is simply not # Perl. It's # about as much Perl as Perl1 was AWK, C and Bourne Shell. I'm # not saying # that there's anything wrong with Perl6, or that it's on the # wrong track. # I love it, and want to start using it tomorrow. However, it # is clearly a # new species, and just as we do not call Homo Sapiens Sapiens, Homo # Erectus 3, I am beginning to come around to the opinion that # Perl6 is a # poor choice of name for this new language. I'd like you to perform an exercise for me if you have a Camel III. The first thing is to open it to Chapter 4, which starts on page 111. Now, read through Apocalypse 4, highlighting everything that's changed. Not things that have been added--just things that have changed. I think you'll find that Perl 6 isn't as dissimilar to Perl 5 as you may think. --Brent Dax [EMAIL PROTECTED] Parrot Configure pumpking and regex hacker Check out the Parrot FAQ: http://www.panix.com/~ziggy/parrot.html (no, it's not mine) obra . hawt sysadmin chx0rs lathos This is sad. I know of *a* hawt sysamin chx0r. obra I know more than a few. lathos obra: There are two? Are you sure it's not the same one?
Re: Perl6 -- what is in a name?
What I don't want to start (and I may have done so anyway) is a simple
name war. If you feel emotionally attached to Perl, then fine, so am
I. But if you feel that there is some compelling logic here that will
affect the community, I would be very interested.
The reason why it's still Perl is that it is a relatively small
learning effort to write Perl 6 code using Perl 5 idioms. Eg $foo{bar}
becomes %foo{bar}, '.' becomes '_' etc, but the end code is still
largely recognisably Perl.
Contrast this to an experienced Perl 5 coder trying to pick up Python
or Ruby from scratch. A different order of magnitude altogether.
Clearly there's all the optional new stuff in Perl 6 which is strange and
needs learning, but that's no different from Perl 4 coders having to
get up to speed on refs, OO, and all the other 'strange' stuff that
Perl 5 introduced. (eg think how strange $self-SUPER::bar([qw(a b)])
was to Perl 4 coders.)
So in purely technical terms, I think Perl 6 is close enough to Perl 5
to keep the name.
In marketing terms, we absolutely must keep the name. If you're a fan
of Coke, are you more likely to switch to Cherry Coke (tm)(c)(r)(etc),
or new cherry fizzo drink, bottled in the same factory that makes
Coke(tm)(c)(r)(etc) ;-)
Just MHO.
RE: Perl6 -- what is in a name?
Aaron Sherman: # On Mon, 2002-01-28 at 11:17, Brent Dax wrote: # # I'd like you to perform an exercise for me if you have a Camel III. # # I have a Camel 1 (pink) and 2, but not 3. However, I follow # you. You are # (as everyone else has fallen into the trap of) thinking of only what # hurdles a Perl programmer has in tackling Perl6. # # I ask you to think in terms of a Perl programmer tackling # maintenance of # a program written by someone who has never seen old Perl. # Look at C++. # I can write a C++ program easily if I'm a C programmer. # However, trying # to maintain a native C++ program as a C programmer would be impossible # without a good chunk of re-education. C9x, on the other hand would be # easy for an old-school KR C programmer to understand (even if the # parameter passing is very different). # # Here's the scary part... C++'s syntax is more like C's than # Perl6's will # be like Perl5's. Really. Mostly C++ just adds new operators and leaves # the rest of the language alone. . becoming _, - becoming ., # = becoming a tuple constructor, % and @ becoming... something # new. These are the hurdles that C programmers never had to # deal with in # going to C++, but Perl programmers will have to. *THEN* # there's the new # syntax. Imagine trying to understand code that actually uses Perl6. # # I think you'll find that Perl 6 isn't as dissimilar to Perl # 5 as you may # think. # # I think the first guy that gets hired to maintain Perl6 code, # and think # hey, I know Perl, no sweat will disagree with you. I disagree. He'll see stuff he doesn't understand and try to consult perldoc on it, at which point he'll realize that he's working with Perl 6. Then he'll run out, get Camel IV, read it, and go back to work. Programmer is working with a better version of language, program is fixed, and ORA made fifty bucks. Everybody's happy. :^) --Brent Dax [EMAIL PROTECTED] Parrot Configure pumpking and regex hacker Check out the Parrot FAQ: http://www.panix.com/~ziggy/parrot.html (no, it's not mine) obra . hawt sysadmin chx0rs lathos This is sad. I know of *a* hawt sysamin chx0r. obra I know more than a few. lathos obra: There are two? Are you sure it's not the same one?
RE: Perl6 -- what is in a name?
From: Brent Dax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Aaron Sherman: # # I think the first guy that gets hired to maintain Perl6 code, # and think hey, I know Perl, no sweat will disagree with # you. I disagree. He'll see stuff he doesn't understand and try to consult perldoc on it, at which point he'll realize that he's working with Perl 6. Then he'll run out, get Camel IV, read it, and go back to work. Programmer is working with a better version of language, program is fixed, and ORA made fifty bucks. Everybody's happy. :^) Perhaps. Or perhaps he'll be like our company's lead C++ developers. They liked Perl4 well enough for a certain problem domain, saw some Perl5 code... and have tried to stay away from it ever since. Perl6 isn't going to make everyone happy.
Re: Perl6 -- what is in a name?
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 01:52:13PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote: : :From: Brent Dax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] : Aaron Sherman: : # : # I think the first guy that gets hired to maintain Perl6 code, : # and think hey, I know Perl, no sweat will disagree with : # you. : : I disagree. He'll see stuff he doesn't understand and try to : consult perldoc on it, at which point he'll realize that he's : working with Perl 6. Then he'll run out, get Camel IV, read : it, and go back to work. Programmer is working with a better : version of language, program is fixed, and ORA made fifty : bucks. Everybody's happy. :^) : :Perhaps. Or perhaps he'll be like our company's lead C++ developers. They :liked Perl4 well enough for a certain problem domain, saw some Perl5 code... :and have tried to stay away from it ever since. : :Perl6 isn't going to make everyone happy. Until you start running their code on parrot, or compile it to Perl bytecode. :-) Darn, nasty thoughts out loud again. Casey West -- Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction. -- Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872
Re: Perl6 -- what is in a name?
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Garrett Goebel wrote:
From: Brent Dax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Aaron Sherman:
#
# I think the first guy that gets hired to maintain Perl6 code,
# and think hey, I know Perl, no sweat will disagree with
# you.
I disagree. He'll see stuff he doesn't understand and try to
consult perldoc on it, at which point he'll realize that he's
working with Perl 6. Then he'll run out, get Camel IV, read
it, and go back to work. Programmer is working with a better
version of language, program is fixed, and ORA made fifty
bucks. Everybody's happy. :^)
Perhaps. Or perhaps he'll be like our company's lead C++ developers. They
liked Perl4 well enough for a certain problem domain, saw some Perl5 code
and have tried to stay away from it ever since.
Pretty odd, I think that C++ is to C, what perl5 to perl4 except
they forgot about the backcompatibility thing. So, in a sense, C++
developper should like perl5.
I see Python and Ruby as cleant-up but incompatible perl5 just like
Java or C# are cleant-up C++.
Perl6 will be cleant-up perl5 with a bunch of new features that will make
more expressive than ever.
Perl6 isn't going to make everyone happy.
I joked that java lover will just corps-dump (choke) when seeing:
@dirpath ^=~ s{([^/])$}{$1/};
I love it.
--
Stéphane Payrard -- s.payrard@@wanadoo.fr
# mailstat
Most people don't type their own logfiles; but, what do I care?
RE: Perl6 -- what is in a name?
At 01:52 PM 1/28/2002 -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote: From: Brent Dax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Aaron Sherman: # # I think the first guy that gets hired to maintain Perl6 code, # and think hey, I know Perl, no sweat will disagree with # you. I disagree. He'll see stuff he doesn't understand and try to consult perldoc on it, at which point he'll realize that he's working with Perl 6. Then he'll run out, get Camel IV, read it, and go back to work. Programmer is working with a better version of language, program is fixed, and ORA made fifty bucks. Everybody's happy. :^) Perhaps. Or perhaps he'll be like our company's lead C++ developers. They liked Perl4 well enough for a certain problem domain, saw some Perl5 code... and have tried to stay away from it ever since. Perl6 isn't going to make everyone happy. I have a hard time believing those C++ guys are really Perl lovers; I'ver never spoken to a Perl fan that didn't have dreams of a making the language even better than it already is; better OO in Perl, etc. Maybe they just have a huge unwieldy Perl4 app they don't wish to port. -Melvin
Re: Perl6 -- what is in a name?
Melvin Smith writes: : Maybe they just have a huge unwieldy Perl4 app they don't wish to port. The perl5-to-perl6 translator should handle Perl 4 as well. It might even handle Perls 3, 2, and 1. :-) Larry
Re: Perl6 -- what is in a name?
Perl6 isn't going to make everyone happy. That's right, it isn't. Nor should it strive to. First off, there are the folks who've no clue what Perl even is. Perl 6 won't make them happy. On the other hand, they won't really be disappointed with it, either. But that's a rather silly demographic to use as an illustration. The second group are those that weren't happy with Perl 5. Or Perl 4. Or Perl 3. Perl 6 isn't going to win them over. Sorry. (This may also seem like a silly demographic, but in truth, it's not. People who don't like Perl 5 won't like Perl 6, which kind of demonstrates how similar the two really are.) The third group that won't be happy with Perl 6 are those who program in a limited subset of Perl - so limited, in fact, that they will most likely be bitten by minor changes in the language, without the benefit of experiencing the major improvements that those changes allowed. These people are, by and large, not professional programmers, but folks for whom Perl is a simple and powerful tool in their jobs, and it will drive them crazy when their toolkits and recipes stop working. I should know, I support multitudes of these people. The fourth group will, we should hope, be happy with Perl 6. These are the folks who do program in Perl, and are constantly fighting against limitations, either real or perceived. Some may be happier than others, of course. It all depends on what you consider to be important to you. I do very little structured OO programming, for instance, so a lot of the improvements in that area I will undoubtedly be oblivious to. But as long as I can continue slinging my one- to ten-liners, I'll be content. The final group, those that have yet to discover Perl, are a toss-up. Many of them will hate Perl 6, no matter what name it was called by. But others... they will learn and love Perl 6 the way some of learned and loved Perl 5... or Perl 4... or even Perl 1. So, what *is* in a name? If a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet, why continue to call it a rose? Because identifiers are a proxy for what they represent - an evocation of the object without benefit of having one. Calling them roses allows you to share the sight and smell (and touch!) of the flower, along with the emotions that are inevitably coupled with it. Calling Perl 6 Perl allows those who dislike the thorns to beware, and those that appreciate the beauty to properly care for it. The only people who will probably care - not just comment on it, but truly care - about the name are the people in the third group. But for them, it's usually necessary only to stress the version number as a part of the name. For these people, it isn't just Perl - it's Perl 5. Which Perl 6 is not. -- Bryan C. Warnock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Perl6 -- what is in a name?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The third group that won't be happy with Perl 6 are those who program in a limited subset of Perl - so limited, in fact, that they will most likely be bitten by minor changes in the language, without the benefit of experiencing the major improvements that those changes allowed. These people are, by and large, not professional programmers, but folks for whom Perl is a simple and powerful tool in their jobs, and it will drive them crazy when their toolkits and recipes stop working. I should know, I support multitudes of these people. Just out of curiosity, what percentage of Perl users would you say fall into this category? And should follow-ups to this go, perhaps, to [EMAIL PROTECTED]? John A
Re: Perl6 -- what is in a name?
On 1/28/02 9:43 PM, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
So, what *is* in a name? If a rose by any other name would smell just as
sweet, why continue to call it a rose? Because identifiers are a proxy for
what they represent - an evocation of the object without benefit of having
one.
Heh, programmer prose... ;)
(sub AUTOLOAD { if($AUTOLOAD =~ /::rose/) { ... } })
-John
Re: Re: Perl6 -- what is in a name?
On Monday 28 January 2002 21:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The third group that won't be happy with Perl 6 are those who program in a limited subset of Perl - so limited, in fact, that they will most likely be bitten by minor changes in the language, without the benefit of experiencing the major improvements that those changes allowed. These people are, by and large, not professional programmers, but folks for whom Perl is a simple and powerful tool in their jobs, and it will drive them crazy when their toolkits and recipes stop working. I should know, I support multitudes of these people. Just out of curiosity, what percentage of Perl users would you say fall into this category? I wouldn't. :-) If there's one thing that I have learned in my travels throughout the technical world, it's that Perl can and does show up in the strangest of places. And for every use that I've seen, there are probably a hundred more. Another thing that is difficult in classifying the third group is the delineation between Perl and the problem domain. If you use all of the core Perl features strictly to do web page generation, are you using a small or large subset of Perl? From a practical perspective, very little of a computer language is the language itself. I would, however, be so bold to say that these mailing lists are a poor representation of the Perl community at large, and of the group in question specifically. But even if they are a silent majority, do we need to cater to their unspoken requirements? That, ultimately, is *the* question. And the answer already lies within the Perl philosophy of making the hard things easy without making the easy things hard. Most of the minor changes that will affect the casual camel jockey are a change from the simple to the simple. They'll make the occasional mistake. And they'll get frustrated. But the changes won't be difficult to learn. In the meantime, many folks who have struggled to do wondrously difficult things in Perl will now do even more wondrously difficult things - and, what is more, those wondrously difficult things will make what was previously unaccessable available.Or so the theory goes. Of course, then there's Damian, who will reach the point of doing everything that's impossible simultaneously... and in constant time. And should follow-ups to this go, perhaps, to [EMAIL PROTECTED]? If we were to discuss *why* it's good for non-professional folks, probably. I'll let someone else cross-post if they feel it's necessary. -- Bryan C. Warnock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
