Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> Uhm, no. Not at all. Just because there's more than one way to do it,
> doesn't mean that one must consider *all* ways equally worthy when one
> simple solution presents itself.
Huh? If I'm against one extreme, I must be for the other?
No, I'm reasonable. Like you.
> (I suggest you have a look over the code to GNU Hello a few times. :)
I would argue that part of the philosophy of Perl is that sometimes
perl isn't the best tool for the job. Sometimes it *is* better to
spawn sort, or awk, or ps. IOW, just because Perl isn't a minimalist
language, doesn't mean it admits no minimilism in its universe.
But such an argument would be irrelevant to this thread.
> Besides, you're not separating the *use* of a programming language
> from its design.
Yes, I am, because I am only talking about its "use", i.e. the
face that it presents to the programmer. (It's "character".)
> A minimal approach to design *is* a good idea.
Of course it is. I didn't think there was any question there.
> Yes, we could throw damned well everything into
> Perl, and you might want to consider that "equally valid".
I might, but I wouldn't. That's precisely why I'm arguing
against adding URLs as an intrinsic type!
Once again, you seem to want to think that we disagree.
--
John Porter
Like music? Then you're gonna love this.
I was into these dudes before anybody.
Asked me to be the manager.
