On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
>
> Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The issues of 'use Python' or 'use Pythonish' are a quite different
> issue.
> > I don't think anyone believes it ought to be easy to *write* the
> Pythonish
> > module.
>
> I do.
> That's the problem. This is a nearly ubiquitously desired objective
> (writing the modules or whatever they are), but I have the fear that
> actually writing one will be so undaunting that it will be a seldom-used
> feature, or one that will be as often avoided as complex perl OOP (beyond
> the basics), provided only by the highest levels of perl mastery.
I think you misunderstand. I think it should be very easy to *use* a
hypothetical Pythonish module. I don't expect it will be very easy to
create it, and I don't see it as worthwhile to expend a disproportionate
amount of effort in that direction.
In another message, you write ...
> I also admit that I would, on a purely personal-bias level, prefer not
> to
> cast too much support in the direction of Python, Java, C#, or ASP at
which also seems to aruge for not working too too hard to make it easy to
write the Pythonish module.
I think one or both of us is confused.
> I don't
> see these little languages as Perl features, but as programmer features,
I don't see Python or Java as a "little language". Perhaps that's the
source of the confusion. I see a whole spectrum of "languages" one might
want to feed to perl6. Easy ones ("little languages") should be easy.
Hard ones (e.g. Tcl, Python) should be possible. In-between-ones should
be in between.
--
Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dept. of Physics
Lafayette College, Easton PA 18042
