;Michael G Schwern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mike Lacey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 11:35 PM
Subject: Re: Perl, the new generation
> On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:15:50PM +0100, Mike Lacey wrote:
> > I read *all* of Camel 1, it was a slim volume and
ounts.
Mike
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Stankus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: Perl, the new generation
> > > Someone looking at that is going to think they have to know all that
to
> be
Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's also amazing how long some people can go without seeing a
> statement modifier or non-default delimiters like s{}{};. In the
> micro view, that's OK. In the macro view, it leads to Perl Mongers
> meetings that feel more like AA:
Which reminds me,
Stephen P. Potter writes:
> Atoms- Unicode. If everything is Unicode, you're going to have to grok
> Unicode (at least tangentally) to be able to use perl.
Others have well dealt to this.
> RFC 161- Everything becomes an object. Filehandles are more object
> oriented in Perl6, and the special
Stephen P. Potter writes:
> Objection, your honor! This is a logical extention of part of the
> discussion. If we're discussing what is wrong with perl5 to make perl6
> better differentiating between philosophies is quite on target.
The corner of the discussion about search.cpan.org and broken
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 08:08:40PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 12:55:55PM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> > Atoms- Unicode. If everything is Unicode, you're going to have to grok
> > Unicode (at least tangentally) to be able to use perl.
>
> Bah. Rubbish, no more than
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 12:55:55PM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> Atoms- Unicode. If everything is Unicode, you're going to have to grok
> Unicode (at least tangentally) to be able to use perl.
Bah. Rubbish, no more than you need to grok Unicode to use Perl 5.6.
Do you know what data of yours
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 07:16:36PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Sean Burke wrote up an excellent article about OO for module users
> which I thought was on perl.com but I can't find at the moment. Maybe
> it was in TPJ.
http://search.cpan.org/doc/SBURKE/HTML-Tree-3.11/lib/HTML/Tree/AboutObj
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 12:22:56PM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> For example, take a look at Camel1. It was a small book; you could carry
> it around without building up huge biceps. You could reasonable read it in
> a couple of days and get started with perl. I tried to get us to maintain
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 11:24:45AM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> You are also saying that OOP is now required, because many/most CPAN
> modules use OOP.
This is a piece of FUD along the lines of "inline POD slows code down"
that keeps people fearful of CPAN and I'd really rather see die. To
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whi
spered:
| This is off-topic for perl6.
Objection, your honor! This is a logical extention of part of the
discussion. If we're discussing what is wrong with perl5 to make perl6
better differentiating between philoso
> > What is Camel4 going to look like for perl 6? What is going to
> be required
> > knowledge for perl6. Let's just start by looking at Apoc2. To
> use perl,
> > you'll have to know Unicode, you'll have to know OO, you'll have to
> > understand references. Those are three very technical conce
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 11:24:45AM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whispere
> d:
> | All Perl programmers, including lone ones, really should be using CPAN as
> | much as they can, which means that the parts of the language
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whispered
:
| Ummm, I must have missed the "have to know Unicode, have to to know OO,
| have to know references" part in the Apoc2. Could you show it to me?
Atoms- Unicode. If everything is Unicode, you're going to hav
Stephen P. Potter writes:
> | You don't need to know any of the modules in CPAN to use perl, but once
> | you learn how to use search.cpan.org, your productivity will most
> | probably increase dramatically. Just like knowing how to use the
> | documentation will make you more productive.
>
> Th
> > Someone looking at that is going to think they have to know all that to
be
> > effective.
Who reads the book. I just use it as reference. I am not the best Perl guru
in the world, but I can program everything I need perl to do. If I ever need
help...it is back to the Perl Camel Book. 2nd edit
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Trond Michelsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whis
pered:
| You don't need to know any of the modules in CPAN to use perl, but once
| you learn how to use search.cpan.org, your productivity will most
| probably increase dramatically. Just like knowing how to use the
|
Stephen P. Potter writes:
> For example, take a look at Camel1. It was a small book; you could carry
> it around without building up huge biceps. You could reasonable read it in
> a couple of days and get started with perl. I tried to get us to maintain
> that in Camel2, but it grew to almost 7
> What is Camel4 going to look like for perl 6? What is going to be required
> knowledge for perl6. Let's just start by looking at Apoc2. To use perl,
> you'll have to know Unicode, you'll have to know OO, you'll have to
> understand references. Those are three very technical concepts that mak
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whi
spered:
| 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.
Dan may be correct that a lot
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whispere
d:
| All Perl programmers, including lone ones, really should be using CPAN as
| much as they can, which means that the parts of the language needed to use
| CPAN modules are part of the understanding you need.
This
On Thu 17 May, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:58:07AM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > 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* kno
LOL!
No bias there then Nat :-)
Mike
- Original Message -
From: "Nathan Torkington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: Perl, the new generation
> Stephen P. Potter writes:
> > It seems to
Dave Storrs writes:
> While it may be true that beginners don't need to use a particular
> feature--or even know about it--how will they know that until they have
> studied it?
Documentation. A curriculum, roadmap, suggested path, whatever. Nate
Wiger's working on a man page to explain
Hmmm...ok, on thinking about it, I generally agree with you.
There is only one point that I would debate (and, as you'll see, there's
a solution for that one, too):
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Dave Storrs writes:
> > 1) One of the great strengths of Perl is th
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:58:07AM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
> 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
On Thu 17 May 2001 00:33, Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2) If the language is so big that you can't hold all of its
> > features in your head, then those extra features might as well not
> > exist.
>
> I disagree. I don't hold all of perl5 in my head. Formats? They're
>
EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Storrs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 6:01 PM
> To: Nathan Torkington
> Cc: Simon Cozens; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Perl, the new generation
>
>
>
>
> On Wed,
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
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
> "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 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
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 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 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, 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
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...
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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 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
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
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 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
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, 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, 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
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
|
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
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
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
> 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.
> 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
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
> >
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
> solutions to problems. It is now (becoming) a full featured
> language, quit
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:01:47PM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> 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 solutions to problems.
See, I have a
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whispered:
| Peter Scott writes:
| : So, I wonder aloud, do we want to signify that degree of change with a more
>
| : dramatic change in the name?
|
| I'm inclined to think that people will be more likely to migrate if
| the
"David Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Perl 5 is far from stagnant--please don't bend the truth to fit your
> > points. My impression is that there's quite a bit more constructive
> > activity on p5p than there was a year ago.
>
> I've stopped paying attention to P5P except for keeping a
> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 10:00:13PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:49:30PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > > We need to keep syntactic compatibility, which means we need
> to keep the
> > > ability for perl6 to USE PERL5.
> >
> > I think you're in violent agreemen
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 03:19:16PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> With respect - and I do mean that - the subject as I started it was, Is
> "Perl 6" the most appropriate title for what we discuss here and what brave
> people like yourself will be implementing?
Peter,
Yes.
Simon
--
All the goo
At 11:11 PM 5/10/01 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 04:41:09PM -0400, David Grove wrote:
> > > Anywhere else? :)
> > FreeBSD comes to mind, among others.
>
>Hm. You initially restricted your survey to commercial vendors, but now
>you are moving the goalposts.
>
> > Can we get b
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 04:41:09PM -0400, David Grove wrote:
> > Anywhere else? :)
> FreeBSD comes to mind, among others.
Hm. You initially restricted your survey to commercial vendors, but now
you are moving the goalposts.
> Can we get back to the subject now?
Certainly. The subject was whethe
> Damian's converted a program from the Cookbook to perl6 to show how
> the language might look. It's not vastly different from the perl5
> version. It certainly still looks like the same language.
Yep. BTW this is the first in a series of articles paralleling Larry's
Apocalypses. Ever
At 09:20 AM 5/10/01 -0700, I wrote:
>At some point, the Perl 6 cognomen will have attracted enough inertia that
>we couldn't reasonably change it even if we wanted to. Maybe that time
>has already come. Maybe not. Can't hurt to raise the question.
I retract the last sentence.
--
Peter Scot
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 04:41:09PM -0400, David Grove wrote:
> My information on this comes from discussion (asking directly) in undernet
> #linux. If this is in error, tell it to them.
An IRC channel, in ERROR?! On Undernet no less?! THE DEUCE YOU SAY!! ;)
Next thing you're going to tell me t
> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 03:58:41PM -0400, David Grove wrote:
> > it's been 13 months since 5.6 was released,
> > and two commercial entities have so far accepted it:
> ActiveState and SuSE.
>
> "a complete, barefaced lie".
To be a lie, it must be purposeful. I am not above error, however.
> Wh
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 09:06:47PM +0100, Mike Lacey wrote:
> The idea of changing all of my Perl scripts is *not* attractive,
> actually it's sort of scary.
Before this FUD gets any further, let me repeat. It will NOT be
necessary to immediately change over all your Perl scripts!
/usr/bin/perl
David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unless Perl 6 is capable of parsing and running that 99.9% (or higher)
> of Perl 5 scripts originally foretold, I foresee a far worse outcome for
> Perl 6 than has happened for an almost universally rejected 5.6 and
> 5.6.1.
Most people don't adopt .0 re
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 03:58:41PM -0400, David Grove wrote:
> it's been 13 months since 5.6 was released,
> and two commercial entities have so far accepted it: ActiveState and SuSE.
This is what seasoned David-Grove-watchers call "a complete, barefaced lie".
Who do you get your Perl from?
Red
- Original Message -
From: "David Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peter Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 5:47 PM
Subject: RE: Perl, the new generation
.
.
.
> Corporate users do not think in terms of nea
> Perl 5 is far from stagnant--please don't bend the truth to fit your
> points. My impression is that there's quite a bit more constructive
> activity on p5p than there was a year ago.
I've stopped paying attention to P5P except for keeping an eye on the
possibility of a new surprise upgrade fr
* Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/10/2001 11:57]:
>
> Nathan Wiger writes:
> : Maybe the name "Perl" should be dropped altogether?
>
> No. The Schemers had to do a name change because the Lisp name had
> pretty much already been ruined by divergence.
>
> : (Granted, that's not what I'd prefe
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael G Schwern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 3:07 PM
> To: Larry Wall
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Perl, the new generation
>
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:55:36AM -0700, Larry Wall wrot
Michael G Schwern writes:
: On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:55:36AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > If you talk that way, people are going to start believing it. The
: > typical Perl 6 program is not going to look very different from the
: > typical Perl 5 program. The danger of us continually talking a
> Nathan Wiger writes:
> : Maybe the name "Perl" should be dropped altogether?
>
> No. The Schemers had to do a name change because the Lisp name had
> pretty much already been ruined by divergence.
>
> : (Granted, that's not what I'd prefer, but the changes are getting
> : rather massive and ar
Michael G Schwern writes:
> It might be useful to draw up a list of functions and features which
> we don't plan on changing? Maybe just run through each Perl 5 man
> page and highlight everything that will still be the same and post
> this somewhere?
Damian's converted a program from the Cookbo
David Grove writes:
: "A slow transition" may be a catchphrase nowadays, but with Perl 5 stagnant,
Perl 5 is far from stagnant--please don't bend the truth to fit your
points. My impression is that there's quite a bit more constructive
activity on p5p than there was a year ago.
: Unless Perl 6
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 02:06:59PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> Maybe, but for one I'm starting to wonder. TomC's rant rang true in
> my ears. How much can we change and still call it the same language?
> I'm not yet panicking, I'm just trying to hug some firm ground here.
The Apocalypses
> If you talk that way, people are going to start believing it. The
> typical Perl 6 program is not going to look very different from the
> typical Perl 5 program. The danger of us continually talking about
> the things we want to change is that people will forget to notice the
> tremendous amou
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:55:36AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> If you talk that way, people are going to start believing it. The
> typical Perl 6 program is not going to look very different from the
> typical Perl 5 program. The danger of us continually talking about
> the things we want to chang
Nathan Wiger writes:
: Maybe the name "Perl" should be dropped altogether?
No. The Schemers had to do a name change because the Lisp name had
pretty much already been ruined by divergence.
: (Granted, that's not what I'd prefer, but the changes are getting
: rather massive and are starting to
At 12:47 PM 5/10/01 -0400, David Grove wrote:
>Unless Perl 6 is capable of parsing and running that 99.9% (or higher) of
>Perl 5 scripts originally foretold, I foresee a far worse outcome for Perl 6
>than has happened for an almost universally rejected 5.6 and 5.6.1.
>
>Fun is fun. But work costs
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 12:56:36PM -0400, David Grove wrote:
> Of course your Perl 5 programs will still work, as long as you
> convert them to Perl 6. We'll have a parser that will be able to do
> this. Of course, you will have to write it yourself.
I think there's a communications foul-up here.
* Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/10/2001 10:55]:
>
> Eh, I fully understand that version number magnitudes are simply to attract
> attention, and that The Faithful don't need the glitz. Since AFAICT the
> glitz doesn't hurt, though, it doesn't do any harm to give marketing all
> the help
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 12:47:34PM -0400, David Grove wrote:
> So, I'll go you one farther. What about creating a cleaned up perl, and
> letting those who want to play with a new language entirely do so in the
> form of a true fork.
If all you're concerned about is providing a cleaned up Perl 5 w
a time.
David T. Grove
Blue Square Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 12:44 PM
> To: Peter Scott
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Perl, the new generation
>
Michael G Schwern writes:
> 5.6.0 style was jarring enough (and fairly well justified). Its been
> so long since we've had an integer increment that it should be fairly
> shocking.
And we can always think of a scheme for codenames, and have that
scheme be the theme for perl6.
Hmm, if perl5 was
I've been wondering for quite some time whether we were creating a Perl for
the purpose of cleaning up the ridiculously rigged Perl 5 internals, or
creating a Perl for the simple enjoyment of creating a new programming
language. Certainly, recent discussions would point to the latter; as we
move f
At 05:36 PM 5/10/01 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>Version numbers are, at best, an indication of the magnitude change.
>At worst they are a cheap marketing ploy. I've always liked that
>Perl's version numbers are relatively free of marketing hoopla (the
>jump from perl3 to perl4 notwithstandin
Peter Scott writes:
: So, I wonder aloud, do we want to signify that degree of change with a more
: dramatic change in the name?
I'm inclined to think that people will be more likely to migrate if
they subconsciously think we're taking continuity into consideration.
Which we are, albeit not at a
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 09:20:13AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> So, I wonder aloud, do we want to signify that degree of change with a more
> dramatic change in the name? Still Perl, but maybe Perl 7, Perl 10, Perl
> 2001, Perl NG, Perl* - heck, I don't know, I'm just trying to get the
> creati
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 05:23:01PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 09:20:13AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> > So, I wonder aloud, do we want to signify that degree of change with a more
> > dramatic change in the name? Still Perl, but maybe Perl 7, Perl 10, Perl
> > 2001, Per
Hey, we could call it Perl 9 from Outer Space. No wait...
Larry
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 09:20:13AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> So, I wonder aloud, do we want to signify that degree of change with a more
> dramatic change in the name? Still Perl, but maybe Perl 7, Perl 10, Perl
> 2001, Perl NG, Perl* - heck, I don't know, I'm just trying to get the
> creati
100 matches
Mail list logo
