At 08:28 PM 8/31/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>Larry Wall wrote:
> >
> > More generally, for all X, I wouldn't mind
> > if Perl became the language of choice for X.
>
>Who wouldn't!
>
>But I think that would probably have to be, "if Perl became the language
>of choice for X - 1".
>
>Perl's gotta
Larry Wall wrote:
>
> Karl Glazebrook writes:
> : I have a lot of respect for Larry, but as a scientist I distrust all this
> : deference to one single authority.
>
> Well, sure, but someone still has to decide who gets the grants. :-)
But it's not always the same person.
> : I don't know if
Larry Wall wrote:
>
> More generally, for all X, I wouldn't mind
> if Perl became the language of choice for X.
Who wouldn't!
But I think that would probably have to be, "if Perl became the language
of choice for X - 1".
Perl's gotta be written in something, after all... ;-)
-Nate
Of course,
Karl Glazebrook writes:
: I have a lot of respect for Larry, but as a scientist I distrust all this
: deference to one single authority.
Well, sure, but someone still has to decide who gets the grants. :-)
: I don't know if Larry has any experience in scientific programming of the
: sort PDL t
Nathan Torkington wrote:
> I'm all for taking proposals on a particular subject (e.g., the PDL
> multidim matrix suggestions, or the lvalue subs suggestions) and
> giving the list a week to boil them down to one RFC that recommends an
> implementation and says what was rejected and why.
ok
> >
(moved to -meta)
Karl Glazebrook writes:
> > > Yes. And for the record I also think the current approach of lets
> > > generate ten million RFCs and Uncle Larry knows best is nuts.
> > > There are already too many RFCs on this topic alone to grasp coherently.
> > Do you have a better suggestion?
