On Monday 02 April 2007, Marc Lehmann wrote: > On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 05:06:34AM +0300, Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Marc! > > > > May I forward my reply to the list? > > Yes, you may. Sorry for replying probably too late, thanks for asking > first! >
OK. Replying to two different list (which I'm not subscribed to). > > > Well, to me, that very much sounds like "we do not openly admit it, but > > > we want to have Perl 5+1 working now, not whatever the Perl 6 people > > > claim they will deliver 5 years ago". > > > > Heh. Well, I don't expect to be able to duplicate the Pugs functionality > > in a short time. :-). However, if you look at: > > > > http://www.shlomifish.org/rindolf/ > > I wasn't clear then. Many peopel do not want a completely > different-in-spirit language called "Perl6", but many people atcually want > a language very much in spirit as Perl 5, just with a few important changes > done. You're right. I used to be very opposed to Perl 6. Now understand that it has some nice improvements over Perl 5, but still find looking at its code to be quite a bit of a future shock. "Perl 6 is a nice language. Too bad it's not Perl." ;-) > > What important changes is a matter of taste and debate, but static typing > is certainly not on the wishlist, especially if its just going to be a > hack to help your optimiser doing stuff it should do without limiting your > expressibility. > Yes, that's right. > > You'll see that back at the time, I was bothered with making Rindolf a: > > > > 1. Backwards compatible with Perl 5. > > Original Perl 6 goal. > Hmmm... are you sure? > > 2. Not entirely compatible with Perl 6. > > Well :) > Well hopefully you would be able to call Rindolf code from Perl 6 code and vice versa. Also see: http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/ideas/#tucan For a different approach for creating a cross-language interaction layer. I admit that I haven't started working on it yet. > > 3. Much less of a future shock than Perl 6 is. > > Original Perl 6 goal. > :-) > If you look at the history, you will see that Perl 6 died halfway in > between, and then completely changed its character. It has very little to > do with Perl 5 anymore, and is probably actively hurting Perl 5 (but it > seems Perl 5 is regenerating slowly). > Well, I prefer a "Do and let do" and (less preferably) a "Complain and let complain" approach than a hurt calcalution. Some people found value in Perl 6, and Audreyt actually created an implementation that sort-of-works. People are also having fun working on Parrot and other related projects. As you know, perl5 (the C-based implementation) has also not been completely neglected, and its hackers are doing fine. This reminds me of the standard "isn't there a better way to spend the time working on Porting to MS Windows" myth. If there are people who are willing to do something FOSSy, then it is worth doing. > > I neglected working on Rindolf because I realised I was not particularly > > bothered by the features I suggested, or often found out these features > > were doable in Perl 5. Since then, however, I often found places where I > > could use some more advanced features. Not critically, since perl 5 was > > good enough, but still. > > > > As much as I respect lwall (and a lot of respect is due), I believe his > > use of Perl for practical applications is rather minimal and does not > > make use of the full range of the Perl 5 hollow technologies (CGI, > > Catalyst/CGI::App/etc., POE, TT/H::T/Petal/etc., etc.). As such, while he > > has a good intuition on what's missing in the core language, he's still > > probably not making the full use of Perl 5's expressive power, much less > > Perl 6's. > > Wouldn't outright agree to that (because I cannot make up my mind about > this interestign aspect so quickly), but I wish you success in Rindolf. Thanks! Like I said - no promises. Maybe I'll get to hacking on punie - maybe I won't. The day is short, and I have a lot of work to do. > > (Although it seems the most interesting promises made by parrot - fast > typeless code for example - are not going to be delivered, too). Hmmm.... I haven't been closely following Parrot. > > (I do not think sending this mail to p5p is a good idea, but it is ok with > me if you want to make a reply to it and want that published). As I said, I'm sending it to p6-language and p6-internals instead. Regards, Shlomi Fish --------------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/ If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer. -- An Israeli Linuxer
