On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 09:32:30AM +0000, David Grove wrote:
> John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Simon Cozens wrote:
> > > > "Perl should remain Perl" (once known as RFC 0) is bogus
> > > If you want things that *aren't* Perl, you know exactly where to find
> > them.
> > RFC 0 continues to be bogus, despite its repetition.
> > Perl6 will be Perl, even though it won't be Perl5.
> Correct. However, the lack of that argument doesn't mean that we should
> arbitrarily slaughter the language. Keeping the time() function the time()
> function _if_possible_ while perhaps adding a millitime() function from a
> library or perl kernel whatsis or however it's added.
I think you're both missing the point of "keep perl perl" argument: the idea
is not that all perl code should transition with no changes, or even that
some common idioms won't stop working. The idea is that we should not kill
the fundemental soul of the language. For example, modern BASICs (like VB)
have a different soul then old-school ROM BASIC. Now, in the case of basic,
I think (for the most part), it's a better soul, but I like perl's soul the
way it is. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like it better with a new haircut.
Hell, I wish I could change my skin and hair and keep my soul. Languages
are a lot more maliable then people.
Changing time such that it gives its result slightly differently is not "not
keeping perl perl", nor is it not keeping time time; changing time() such
that it did somthing radicly different (like returning time-of-day instead)
would be changing it's soul.
And I don't think we should be keeping code-level compatablity just for the
sake of same any more then we should be destroying it just because we can.
-=- James Mastros
--
"My country 'tis of thee, of y'all i'm rappin'! Lan where my brothers
fought, land where our King was shot -- from every building top, let freedom
happen!"
-=- Monique, Sinfest[.net]
AIM: theorbtwo homepage: http://www.rtweb.net/theorb/
