Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>At 12:28 PM 9/25/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
>>As long as Larry is really OK with giving away the store, I don't think
>>anyone
>>else should object.
>
>"Giving away the store", such as it is (and it really isn't) is,
>ultimately, good for perl, and something we should encourage.
To a large extent I agree.
>The more ubiquitous Perl the language (as opposed to perl the
>implementation) is, the better off we all are. I, for one, would be
>*thrilled* if once we got a solid reference doc out for perl 6 someone else
>besides us wrote an interpreter for it.
>
Well between us you make 1.
As soon as you get many implementations, you start to get into
the portability nightmare. We differ on how much of a problem
we think that is.
>The AL as it stands allows, and encourages, all sorts of folks to use perl
>in their products, and embed it inside them. (Yes, we've failed them
>technically in the embedding arena, but that's a separate issue) This is
>good. Really.
Actually the current license discourages embedding Perl. Very
specifically it allows embedding Perl but only if you embed the
whole thing. If an AL style license is kept then it needs to
be more flexible in this regard. (I was more flexible in this
regard!)
>The language should be all over, and that's what's important. The
>implementation's basically, well, an implementation detail, and really
>isn't important.
It isn't important until you try to run my script and it doesn't.
This is the nightmare of JavaScript. This is one of the reasons
that I prefer Perl over Java. This is...you know my opinion.
But I recognize the benefit as well. I don't think it is a
*bad* choice, but I think it is a choice to be made with open eyes
and recognition of the tradeoffs.
Cheers,
Ben
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
