Re: Python is not Java...but will Perl 6 be?
John Siracusa skribis 2004-12-03 14:05 (-0500): I'd like to be able to s/Python/Perl 6/ above, but after many discussions on this topic, I'm still not sure if I can. Anything can be anything. I'm sure that despite the ability to run all the code you want upon reading/writing an attribute, some people will still write setters and getters. Would it be Perl if it dictated any of these approaches? Juerd
Re: Python is not Java...but will Perl 6 be?
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 20:37:40 +0100, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Siracusa skribis 2004-12-03 14:05 (-0500): From http://dirtsimple.org/2004/12/python-is-not-java.html In Java, you have to use getters and setters because using public fields gives you no opportunity to go back and change your mind later to using getters and setters. So in Java, you might as well get the chore out of the way up front. In Python, this is silly, because you can start with a normal attribute and change your mind at any time, without affecting any clients of the class. So, don't write getters and setters. I'd like to be able to s/Python/Perl 6/ above, but after many discussions on this topic, I'm still not sure if I can. Anything can be anything. I'm sure that despite the ability to run all the code you want upon reading/writing an attribute, some people will still write setters and getters. I guess I wasn't asking if it would be possible (I think that's been established), but if it would be easy, reasonable, or clean (as it appears to be in Python, although I'm just going by what the quoted web page says). I recall some discussions about the best way to this in Perl 6, but don't recall if it converged on anything nice. Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see the ease of forward compatibility for simple attributes touted as a feature of Python. I'd like to tout it as a feature of Perl 6 too, because I also hate writing getters and setters... :) -John
Re: Python is not Java...but will Perl 6 be?
John Siracusa skribis 2004-12-03 14:46 (-0500):
Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see the ease of forward
compatibility for simple attributes touted as a feature of Python. I'd
like to tout it as a feature of Perl 6 too, because I also hate writing
getters and setters... :)
Of course it's a feature. Having lvalue attributes means you don't have
to replicate all scalar lvalue methods to get all functionality without
copying. IMO, This is even better than in Python, with its constant
variables.
Let me demonstrate:
$foo.bar .= foo
$foo.bar ~~ s:e/foo/bar/;
$foo.bar.=reverse;
my $quux := $foo.bar;
$quux = 1;
versus:
$foo.set_bar($foo.get_bar ~ foo);
$foo.set_bar(do { (my $temp = $foo.get_bar) ~~ s:e/foo/bar/; $temp });
$foo.set_bar($foo.get_bar.reverse);
my $quux # ... ehm, right. Let's see. I think it's something like:
will STORE { $foo.set_bar($_) }
will FETCH { $foo.get_bar };
$quux = 1;
Juerd
Re: Python is not Java...but will Perl 6 be?
Juerd skribis 2004-12-03 21:09 (+0100): $foo.bar .= foo Meant ~= there. Juerd
Re: Python is not Java...but will Perl 6 be?
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 22:06:43 +0100, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language/9576 Wow, that's a blast from the past. I wonder how much of it is still valid... :) -John
Re: Python is not Java...but will Perl 6 be?
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 04:13:01PM -0500, John Siracusa wrote: : On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 22:06:43 +0100, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language/9576 : : Wow, that's a blast from the past. I wonder how much of it is still : valid... :) Almost all of it, except for details like is public. Just because A12 didn't come out till this year doesn't mean we weren't talking about those things ever since 2000. I knew that attributes wanted to look like $.foo since before Apocalypse 1, for instance. Larry
Re: Python is not Java...but will Perl 6 be?
John Siracusa writes: I guess I wasn't asking if it would be possible (I think that's been established), but if it would be easy, reasonable, or clean (as it appears to be in Python, although I'm just going by what the quoted web page says). I recall some discussions about the best way to this in Perl 6, but don't recall if it converged on anything nice. It converged on the core-like way returning an anonymous object with STORE and FETCH methods is ugly, but it should be easy to provide nice wrappers around it. Those nice wrappers are probably going to end up in the standard dialect. Perl 6 is going to be better with opacity than any other language I know of. We're aware that lying about what's really going on is a useful thing to do. So we give you the chance to be as poker-faced about your internals as you like. ... Not that the user can't read your ass if he tries hard enough :-) Luke
Re: Python is not Java...but will Perl 6 be?
On 2004-12-03 at 14:46:16, John Siracusa wrote: Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see the ease of forward compatibility for simple attributes touted as a feature of Python. I'd like to tout it as a feature of Perl 6 too, because I also hate writing getters and setters... :) Amen. Which reminds me, what ever happened to POOL? You there, Simon? -- Mark REED| CNN Internet Technology 1 CNN Center Rm SW0831G | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Atlanta, GA 30348 USA | +1 404 827 4754
Re: Python is not Java...but will Perl 6 be?
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 02:05:16PM -0500, John Siracusa wrote: From http://dirtsimple.org/2004/12/python-is-not-java.html In Java, you have to use getters and setters because using public fields gives you no opportunity to go back and change your mind later to using getters and setters. So in Java, you might as well get the chore out of the way up front. In Python, this is silly, because you can start with a normal attribute and change your mind at any time, without affecting any clients of the class. So, don't write getters and setters. I'd like to be able to s/Python/Perl 6/ above, but after many discussions on this topic, I'm still not sure if I can. http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language/9576 -- Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pjcj.net
Re: Python...
David Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perl is far more practical than experimental. Not at the moment. That's the problem. Pretty much everything proposed, even in the wildest RFCs during the brainstorming phase, was still stuff that's been done elsewhere by other languages. That's the practical vs. experimental distinction that I'm drawing. I realize that you don't like the direction that Perl 6 design is heading, but it's still not heading towards being an experimental language. I've seen some *real* experimental languages; they're a lot more unconventional. You can still trace nearly everything that was proposed back to C, Lisp, or Generic Object-Oriented Language, if not in inspiration than at least in fundamental similarities. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
RE: Python...
Perl is far more practical than experimental. Not at the moment. That's the problem. (Note the subtle subject change back to its original intent.) p
Re: Python...
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 02:02:03AM +, Vijay Singh wrote: I thought your head would be turned by Ruby ;-) BTW - There's a Ruby Inline::Perl module in alpha testing now...this will be a nice complement to the Inline::Python module already available... And today I put the finishing touches on the Ruby-to-Perl-bytecode compiler. Then there'll be no excuse for people using that slow old Ruby interpreter again. :) -- The steady state of disks is full. -- Ken Thompson
Re: Python...
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 02:02:03AM +, Vijay Singh wrote: I thought your head would be turned by Ruby ;-) BTW - There's a Ruby Inline::Perl module in alpha testing now...this will be a nice complement to the Inline::Python module already available... And today I put the finishing touches on the Ruby-to-Perl-bytecode compiler. Then there'll be no excuse for people using that slow old Ruby interpreter again. :) Apart from the minor issue of Leon not having ported all the runtime libraries (in annoying C) yet. -- Piers Cawley www.iterative-software.com
Re: Python...
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 09:42:37PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote: Apart from the minor issue of Leon not having ported all the runtime libraries (in annoying C) yet. Because I'm hacking at the bytecode level, I can replace the relevant subroutine calls to Perl builtins. Oh, hrm. I wonder if I could use the functions from the Ruby runtime as custom ops. -- Can you sum up plan 9 in layman's terms? It does everything Unix does only less reliably - kt
Re: Python...
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 09:42:37PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote: Apart from the minor issue of Leon not having ported all the runtime libraries (in annoying C) yet. Because I'm hacking at the bytecode level, I can replace the relevant subroutine calls to Perl builtins. Oh, hrm. I wonder if I could use the functions from the Ruby runtime as custom ops. You are a very bad man. Go to it. -- Piers Cawley www.iterative-software.com
Re: Python...
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 10:48:11PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote: Oh, hrm. I wonder if I could use the functions from the Ruby runtime as custom ops. You are a very bad man. Go to it. I would do, but I'm getting segfaults when I reimplement op.c in Perl. Unfortunately, I'm not joking. -- The Write Many, Read Never drive. For those people that don't know their system has a /dev/null already. - Rik Steenwinkel on Exabyte drives, ASR
RE: Python...
-Original Message- From: Vijay Singh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 10:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Python... Python? Didn't know you were so into tuples... I thought your head would be turned by Ruby ;-) It is. But I'm afraid that Ruby is not as mature as Python. It's a business decision. I need a mature, /relatively/ stable language to plan my next few development projects. Perl is looking a bit shaky at the moment. p
Re: Python...
Vijay Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I always expected Perl to be leading the way, *the* language that broke new ground...where only camels dared to tread... Er... that strikes me as a strange expectation. I can't think of much in Perl that hasn't appeared elsewhere earlier. Perl makes a lot of already developed ideas practical, but breaking new ground isn't really its forte. If you want to look at languages that are breaking new ground, I recommend Objective Caml, or Haskell, or Mercury, or even Eiffel. Languages like Perl and Python are really almost entirely just attempting to make practical ideas already explored in other practical and experimental languages. Perl is far more practical than experimental. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Re: Python...
Python? Didn't know you were so into tuples... I thought your head would be turned by Ruby ;-) BTW - There's a Ruby Inline::Perl module in alpha testing now...this will be a nice complement to the Inline::Python module already available... Must dash - Vijay -- ___ Get your free email from http://www.guju.net Powered by Outblaze
