On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 12:37:31PM +0100, Michael Mathews wrote:
> I use the expat and libxslt libraries (both in C) regularly via perl,
> so I guess I must agree that there is a distinction -- thank you for
> clarifying that. But I can't think of any examples where I was stuck
> because I couldn'
On May 26, 2006, at 6:37 AM, Michael Mathews wrote:
I use the expat and libxslt libraries (both in C) regularly via perl,
so I guess I must agree that there is a distinction -- thank you for
clarifying that. But I can't think of any examples where I was stuck
because I couldn't use a "library" o
* Michael Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-26 13:40]:
> But then I'm seeking to learn here so can you give a nice juicy
> example of a non-C library that would be a big plus to be able
> to include in Perl?
There are several Python projects that I wish I could use without
having to reimplement
"Gabor Szabo" schreef:
> {Cobol etc.]
> IMHO - and I really saw only a few such companies - these companies
> have 0 automatic tests so it would cost them a lot of time and money
> to test their application on the new and shiny Cobol compiler.
I once worked on tests for a national center of a ban
[
I am sorry this will not respond directly to the message in question as
I have not seen it in my inbox. I hope the attribution is correct though.
]
On 5/26/06, Dr.Ruud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not really. Think about a Cobol-to-Parrot translator. You could for
>> example use Perl (glu
"Michael Mathews" schreef:
> [attribution repaired] Ruud:
>> [attribution repaired] Michael:
(Michael previously sent me an independent off-list reply; we're back on
the list now)
>>> As I gradually learn how Parrot works, I see that perhaps the idea
>>> of decompiling byte-code into language ___
On 26/05/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Michael Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-26 12:45]:
> In the end it was decided to rewrite that chunk in Perl. I can
> tell you, there definitely was cursing in the office that day,
> and I doubt anyone there would see it as a plus to hav
* Michael Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-26 12:45]:
> In the end it was decided to rewrite that chunk in Perl. I can
> tell you, there definitely was cursing in the office that day,
> and I doubt anyone there would see it as a plus to have the
> ability to mix languages more easily. I just wo
> As I gradually learn how Parrot works, I see that perhaps the idea of
> decompiling byte-code into language ___ is only a pipe-dream. But the
> point still remains--using the fact that one *could* mix languages X,
> Y, and P into your company's source tree is a very weak argument for
> Parrot/Pe
"Michael Mathews" schreef:
> [compile down to a *language independent* format]
> So does that mean I can write a module in Perl 6, deliver it to Mr.
> Customer as byte-code. Then Mr. Customer can "decompile"(?) it into
> Python (or JavaScript, or C, etc), edit it, and then compile it back
> into w
* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-25 20:45]:
> The first hurdle would be the syntax. The programmer just
> looking at the code would need to know when one section of code
> represents a snippet of logic programming. Is the following a
> function call or a Prolog fact?
>
> loves( 'foo', 'bar'
"Michael Mathews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So my question to the list is, in simple terms even an IT manager
> could grasp, explain what problems Perl 5 has that Perl 6 fixes,
> such that they would want to undergo the pain of ever switching.
>From a Perl point of view: there should be no pai
- Original Message
From: David Romano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > duplicate results and this is almost always wrong. (See
> > http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/28378
> > for an SQL example of this problem).
> I re-read your journal entry and comments (I had read it back when you
> first had
This topic may be better suited to perl6-language, unless you consider
its denizens to already be self-selected against logic programming. :)
Larry
Hi Ovid,
On 5/24/06, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As an aside for those who, like me, wanted to see support for logic
programming: the only significant disappoinment I have with Perl6 is also,
oddly enough, accompanied by a sigh of relief. Perl6 will easily support
imperative, functional
* Michael Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-25 00:45]:
> Is there something in Perl 6 akin to a "use strict" switch that
> will apply the straightjacket some projects need, and thus
> force typing of all variables. (Then I could have a good
> comeback for those damned Java guys.)
It’s called Co
Thanks for that Ovid. I agree that any language must stand on it's
merits in the long-term, but there is an undeniable "hump" every new
language must get over to convince people it's worth trying in the
first place.
From your excellent summary I think speed, CLR and real OO should
definitely ma
Ah, perfect example Daniel. I know people say things like "Java is
better for big projects because of the strictness of it's typing". I
respond that Perl isn't intrinsically sloppy if you practice good
coding, it just doesn't straightjacket you into that all the time.
So here's Perl 6 and it has
Sheesh. I type things too fast and then I see the horrifying typos I've made
(blush)
- Original Message
From: Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> do things that is hard to do in other languages.
"do things that *are* hard to do in other languages"
> Perl6 not only fixes a lot of that cruft bu
- Original Message
From: Michael Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So my question to the list is, in simple terms even an IT manager
> could grasp, explain what problems Perl 5 has that Perl 6 fixes, such
> that they would want to undergo the pain of ever switching.
Hi Michael,
Many comp
> what problems Perl 5 has that Perl 6 fixes
A type system to die for.
I think that is enough of a win on its own that mentioning any of the
other features will only muddy the issue :->
--
"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who
are laughed at are geniuses. The
21 matches
Mail list logo
