On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:12:18 -0700 Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nikolay Ananiev wrote: > > > Maybe we have to search harder for new ways to advertise Parrot to > > other communities and get new developers and supporters to the > > project. > > On that I completely agree, but as a simple matter of practicality, > not some desperate bid for market dominance. If you want to recruit > new C developers, you go where C developers hang out. (chromatic and > I are speaking at a Linux conference this weekend.) > > > Currently, Parrot looks too Perlish > > On that I completely disagree. Parrot looks very Perlish because it's > highly dynamic and intended to be easy to use (which happen to also > be goals of Perl). This is an advantage. I also disagree here quite strongly. I trust the perl community above all other communities because it is unique in one respect. "There is more than one way to do it". The world is simply to complex to be crammed into a single paradigm without having horrible blow-outs of *artificial* complexity all over the place. I like to use OO for some parts of a problem, more functional approaches in others, and to bundle it all into a usable program there is only one language: perl. With parrot I will be able to use multiple languages with paradigm freedom. That is important to me as no superlative can convey. Despite the generally higher intelligence of programmers, or maybe because of it ... programmers are sucked into paradigm zealotry to a degree that could be classified as cultish in human behavior. Another explanation is that a paradigm is an investment, once a developer "pays" for a paradigm they are reluctant to adopt another. Either way you cut the paradigm thing the only community in programming that does not immediately trigger a full recall of Orwell's 1984 is the perl community. Lisp does too, but by allowing you to create paradigms with macros :) so parrot is double-plus good. Truly adopting paradigm freedom requires an intellectual transformation and commitement, no more training wheels, no accepted practice to offer as an excuse for how things are written. That and you have to use your own judgement case-by-case. That will not come from places like Microsoft :) Look at C#, java , they don't need to send mind-police , it's built into the compiler. This may sound elitish, but it is really not. It is easier , alot easier to just apply the same old cookie cutters (patterns ?) to every problem. Sometimes it makes good sense. But for the people who are always feeling boxed-in by language paradigms I think perl/parrot is where they will call home. With perl 6 especially the quirky evolutionary flavor of perl 5 is replaced with a very clean language design. The only thing left to turn people off will be the availability of choice. In summary until microsoft/sun anoints Bruce Lee as their official hero , with posters in every hall nothing like parrot will ever come from those places. It's really hard to sell "having no way as the way" as a industry band-wagon. > > and is mainly supported by the Perl > > community. > > That's not really an advantage or disadvantage, it's an accident of > history. And, probably also a sympathy of vision. There is sympathy with that vision here. > Allison
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
