At 05:32 PM 8/2/00 +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 12:22:10PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > There is no limit to the funky algorithms one can come up with;
> > not everyting should go in the core.
>
>True, but if there is a very common idiom like these that people
>are constantly requesting, why should they not be considered
>if there is a considerable performace benefit.
More importantly, the more primitives that perl provides, the wilder and
more useful things people will be able to do.
One of the big things that drives perl's success is its high-levelness
(both in what's provided with the core distribution and on CPAN). People
don't *have* to reinvent the subway (let alone something as simple as a
wheel) because we hand them the equivalent of the London Underground. This
lets folks work at a higher level of abstraction. That's good, since people
are limited in the number of symbols they can manage at once. The more each
symbol encompasses the more they can do. (Or, rather, they do the same
amount of stuff, it's just far more productive stuff)
To snag a metaphor, languages like C hand people transistors and wires,
while perl 5 & CPAN hand people sacks of ICs. Why not have perl 6 provide
quantum and analog devices as well?
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
