[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) writes:
> is it really that new and scary?
No, but not for the reasons you think. You seem to believe that you're
comparing Perl and a Perl-derived language and pointing out that they're
both like Perl, but it looks like you're comparing two Algol-derived
languages and pointing out that they both look like Algol.
By declaring any change between the two code examples to be "good" in your
subjective opinion you mentally absolve any difference in "Perlness",
which means that you don't actually address the issue at all:
> Ok, fine. No big deal.
> good change IMHO.
> Again, a good visual change,
Aye, but changes they are!
> Ok, another:
> #!/usr/bin/perl
> use IO::Socket::INET;
> $n=IO::Socket::INET->new(LocalPort=>20010,Listen=>5);
> $n->listen();
> while(($s=$n->accept())){
> print <$s>;
> close $s;
> }
require 'IO/Socket/INET';
$n = IO::Socket::INET.new({ :LocalPort => 20010, :Listen => 5 });
$n.listen();
while ($s=$n.accept())
print $s.gets;
$s.close;
end
Again, not much difference. "end" to delimit a block is probably the biggest
visual difference. : to qualify barewords as symbols, but hey, that seems like
a positive change to me. Page after page after page of A12, and still this
code looks the same. I'd say that's a win!
But, you know, somehow I suspect exactly the same arguments will magically
not apply to other languages, right?
> But really... which would you prefer?!
That wasn't the question. Of course I prefer Perl 6. I prefer it because it
isn't Perl, though, not because it is!
--
<dhd> even though I know what a 'one time pad' is, it still sounds like
a feminine hygiene product.
