On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:41:15PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Stephen P. Potter writes:
> > It seems to me that recently (the last two years or so) and
> > especially with 6, perl is no longer the SAs friend. It is no
> > longer a fun litle language that can be easily used to hack out
> >
> It's not so much that Perl shouldn't have data structures or modules.
> I think what Stephen is saying (and he's not the only one) is that
> the bare minimum amount of Perl you *must* know to be productive
> is increasing. Either that, or we're giving the impression that
> it's increasing. Man
> It's not so much that Perl shouldn't have data structures or modules.
> I think what Stephen is saying (and he's not the only one) is that
> the bare minimum amount of Perl you *must* know to be productive
> is increasing. Either that, or we're giving the impression that
> it's increasing.
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 08:57:42AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> It doesn't look to me like the amount of Perl one needs to know to achieve
> a given level of productivity is increasing in volume or complexity at
> all. What it looks like to me is that there are additional features being
> added
At 12:45 PM 5/16/01 -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
>On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 08:57:42AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> > It doesn't look to me like the amount of Perl one needs to know to achieve
> > a given level of productivity is increasing in volume or complexity at
> > all. What it looks like to me i
At 11:58 AM 5/16/2001 -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
>On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:41:15PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> > Stephen P. Potter writes:
> > > When we moved from 4 to 5, so people thought we should continue
> > > developing 4 without all the "useless" new stuff, like OO and
> > > threads
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and "David Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
m> whispered:
| > I think what Stephen is saying (and he's not the only one) is that
| > the bare minimum amount of Perl you *must* know to be productive
| > is increasing. Either that, or we're giving the impression that
|
On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Grove wrote:
> For me, it's the bare minimum amount of Perl you must *use* to be productive
> that I see increasing in our plans and discussions. I'm afraid of Perl
> turning into a verbose monstrosity to please verbosity addicts of languages
> whose only point of adv
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Adam Turoff wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 08:57:42AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> > It doesn't look to me like the amount of Perl one needs to know to achieve
> > a given level of productivity is increasing in volume or complexity at
> > all. What it looks like to me i
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:14:57AM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
> afraid of, and to express your concerns about it. However, the way that
> you chose to do that ("Once quick and dirty dies, Perl dies.") implies
> that the only thing that Perl is good for is q-n-d
A veritable lesson in logic! Here's
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:14:57AM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
> > afraid of, and to express your concerns about it. However, the way that
> > you chose to do that ("Once quick and dirty dies, Perl dies.") implies
> > that the only thing that Perl is go
Dave Storrs writes:
> < SARCASM=EXTREME>
Everyone, please try to stop the downhill descent of the conversation.
This is not just Dave, but others in the thread too.
I'm trying to understand what people fear, and why they fear it, so
that I know how to respond. Ridiculing, inflaming, or exaggera
On Wednesday 16 May 2001 14:49, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> I'm trying to understand what people fear, and why they fear it, so
> that I know how to respond. Ridiculing, inflaming, or exaggerating
> those fears don't make them go away.
I think the biggest fear isn't that Perl is going to grow out
At 12:49 PM 5/16/2001 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>So I guess I don't see it as that big a problem. Am I missing
>something?
I think you might be. This isn't a problem of reality--it's a problem of
perception and personal tendencies.
People think they *must* know all the core bits of a lan
Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> I think the biggest fear isn't that Perl is going to grow out of its niche,
> but that it's going to outgrow it. It's great that Perl has been able to
> expand to be so many things to so many people, but not at the expense of
> forgetting its roots - of the whole Rig
At 01:32 PM 5/16/2001 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> > I think the biggest fear isn't that Perl is going to grow out of its
> niche,
> > but that it's going to outgrow it. It's great that Perl has been able to
> > expand to be so many things to so many people, but no
Dan Sugalski writes:
> People think they *must* know all the core bits of a language, and they
> think that consists of all the stuff we ship with perl. (And, let's face
> it, we ship a *lot* of stuff with perl) It's like you're not allowed to
> know only a part of a language anymore--that's so
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 01:51:24PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Dan Sugalski writes:
> > People think they *must* know all the core bits of a language, and they
> > think that consists of all the stuff we ship with perl. (And, let's face
> > it, we ship a *lot* of stuff with perl) It's like
At 01:51 PM 5/16/01 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Hmm, it'd be interesting to see a Map of Perl. Operators, functions,
>modules, features, etc. divided up according to topic and complexity
>and laid out around the central blob of "Basic Perl" that everyone
>knows (variables, assignment, math,
At 01:51 PM 5/16/2001 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Dan Sugalski writes:
> > People think they *must* know all the core bits of a language, and they
> > think that consists of all the stuff we ship with perl. (And, let's face
> > it, we ship a *lot* of stuff with perl) It's like you're not allo
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 12:49:00PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> If you work in a team, then the bar is raised to the union (not the
> intersection) of everyone's knowledge. But team programming is not
> for small trivial tasks, and if you're solving large complex tasks
> then it's unsurprisi
Nathan Torkington sent the following bits through the ether:
> Hmm, it'd be interesting to see a Map of Perl.
Would a graph be good enough? I'll see what I can do ;-)
Leon
--
Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/
Iterative Software...http://www.iterative-softw
Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But at the same time, if you're a lone programmer, there's nothing in
> Perl that forces you to use closures or write your code in modules, or
> anything like that. Those features are there if you need 'em, but if
> you don't, you're okay.
All Per
At 04:09 PM 5/16/2001 -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
>It's also amazing how long some people can go without seeing a
>statement modifier or non-default delimiters like s{}{};
Or for real fun, qx''; Nothing quite like disabling double-quote
interpolation to flip people out...
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 01:32:26PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> In that case, how exactly has it forgotten its roots? I mean, in what
> way is it not as useful as it was before?
[Please forgive the following marketspeak]
The issue isn't that Perl is less useful now. It's that it's shifted
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 01:51:24PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Hmm, it'd be interesting to see a Map of Perl. Operators, functions,
> modules, features, etc. divided up according to topic and complexity
> and laid out around the central blob of "Basic Perl" that everyone
> knows (variables,
> On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Grove wrote:
>
> > For me, it's the bare minimum amount of Perl you must *use* to
> be productive
> > that I see increasing in our plans and discussions. I'm afraid of Perl
> > turning into a verbose monstrosity to please verbosity addicts
> of languages
> > whose only
On Wednesday 16 May 2001 15:32, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> > I think the biggest fear isn't that Perl is going to grow out of its
> > niche, but that it's going to outgrow it. It's great that Perl has been
> > able to expand to be so many things to so many people, but n
On Wednesday 16 May 2001 16:38, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 01:51:24PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> > Hmm, it'd be interesting to see a Map of Perl. Operators, functions,
> > modules, features, etc. divided up according to topic and complexity
> > and laid out around the ce
> "Dan" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dan> People think they *must* know all the core bits of a language, and
Dan> they think that consists of all the stuff we ship with perl. (And,
Dan> let's face it, we ship a *lot* of stuff with perl) It's like you're
Dan> not allowed to know
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Dave Storrs writes:
> > < SARCASM=EXTREME>
>
> Everyone, please try to stop the downhill descent of the conversation.
> This is not just Dave, but others in the thread too.
For the record, the original post in this sequence came from Dav
Dave Storrs writes:
> 1) One of the great strengths of Perl is that its learning curve
> is very shallow but very long. Adding more stuff to the language makes
> the curve steeper, because you need to hold more in your head as you learn
> it.
I see those as orthogonal. I can add more to t
We are definitely not on the same thread.
I don't believe that this discussion should go away, but I do believe it
should fork appropriately. We're talking about several things at once and
it's confusing the issues. See off list remarks.
David T. Grove
Blue Square Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL
33 matches
Mail list logo
