On 11/7/05, Michele Dondi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Rob Kinyon wrote: > > > So, for a bit of extra complexity, I get peace of mind for myself and my > > users. > > The point being, and I'm stressing it once again but no more than once, > that maybe we're adding two bits of extra complexity, whereas just one bit > not only would have been enough, but would have bought you even more peace > of mind. Then again: this is a _feeling_ I got e.g. by reading the > appearently endless discussions about the specifications of sub > parameters, which seem to ensue inherent technical difficulties having to > do with the attempt _conciliate_ too many different paradigms.
Honestly? I skip about 50% of the discussions on this list. I don't care about most of the syntax discussions and I don't care about sub signatures. Well, I -DO- care, just not enough to wrangle about it. All I care about is "Can I do what I want to do in an easy fashion?" That's why I spent so much time on roles and why I've released Perl6::Roles to CPAN. (Well, that was for DBI-2, but I can claim it was for me, right?) The point is that I will not use a lot of the features in Perl6, just like I didn't use alot of the features in Perl5. I doubt I'll ever use PGE directly (though macros will be nice, once I figure out where I'd use them). Same with most of the subroutine types. Though, I do find the complexity reassuring. I like having the options, even though I will never use them. The alternative is Perl5, where you can do (almost) anything you could want, except you have you jump through lots of hoops and you end up with something that works, but really really slowly. No-one wants that. Rob
