At 06:45 PM 8/8/00 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>I think that Perl survived its first through fifth births because the
>idioms it chose to implement were familiar.
>
>One could conceivably create a semantically pure language with
>no platform or OS dependencies, but then no one would use it.
>
>Creating new idioms is fine. I'm all for it. If you can do it in a
>language, why not do it? What's wrong with map{} in a void context?
>;-)
>
>Be careful destroying old idioms out of spite, or just because you've
>created a new one.
>
>In most cases, you haven't created a replacement, but a substitute.
>There's a difference.
FWIW, as far as I'm concerned, these lists are just an extension of the
creative mind of Larry (and whoever he chooses to form a cabal with :-)
) Go hog wild; carve up the language as much as you want; brainstorm, get
wacky. Ultimately every idea will go through Larry & Co and I trust
his/their judgement to use whatever looks good and ditch the rest, however
popular.
I do not want a language designed by a committee, or even a
democracy. This is art, not politics.
--
Peter Scott
Pacific Systems Design Technologies
