On Monday, March 17, 2003 16:32 -0500 Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 4:24 PM -0500 3/17/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just because they're putting something
into perl 6 that doesn't help you get your
job done, doesn't mean that they're doing
it simply for an ego trip.
For the record, red
At 01:29 PM 3/18/2003 -0600, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote:
And if it's any comfort to you I hear they have a
special cousel in an grumpy 80 year-old man :)
I feel better already, Thanks. Is it Mel Brooks or Carl Reiner? I think
I'll have a nectarine ...
Charlie
__
OK, I'll bite. Who?
> -Original Message-
> From: Elaine -HFB- Ashton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 2:30 PM
...
> And if it's any comfort to you I hear they have a special cousel in an
> grumpy 80 year-old man :)
Hopefully helpfully yours,
Steve
--
Steven To
Charles Reitzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] quoth:
*>
*>Due to it's single implementation, Perl should be spared the worst. But,
*>for that same reason, the advanced features could well weigh down the
*>language as a whole in both interpretation and execution speed.
Perl 4 people said the same thing many
At 01:03 AM 3/18/2003 -0600, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote:
Joe Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] quoth:
*>
*>Do you trust Larry and Damain?
I wish they'd just stop circulating the Apocs so widely as every time
Larry emits one there is a rash of people who think the world has needed
to know or cares that it
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> At 10:30 AM -0500 3/18/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Erik Price wrote:
> >> linguistic scholars have noticed that
> >> throughout human history, there has
> >> always been a trend of languages
> >> diverging, rather than converging
> >
> >awk, sed, and a mish-mash of
At 10:30 AM -0500 3/18/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik Price wrote:
linguistic scholars have noticed that
throughout human history, there has
always been a trend of languages
diverging, rather than converging
awk, sed, and a mish-mash of useful
functionality converging into Perl
would be a co
Erik Price wrote:
> linguistic scholars have noticed that
> throughout human history, there has
> always been a trend of languages
> diverging, rather than converging
awk, sed, and a mish-mash of useful
functionality converging into Perl
would be a counter-example.
The fear seems to be that P
Erik Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] quoth:
*>
*>I'm not a linguistic scholar, but I read once that linguistic scholars
*>have noticed that throughout human history, there has always been a
*>trend of languages diverging, rather than converging (as one might
*>expect). As the amount of widespread-ednes
On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 02:03 AM, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote:
400 hundred years ago Agricola codified Finnish yet today there are
more
than 80 dialects not to mention the huge variation between the written
and
spoken forms.
I'm not a linguistic scholar, but I read once that linguistic sch
Joe Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] quoth:
*>
*>Do you trust Larry and Damain?
I wish they'd just stop circulating the Apocs so widely as every time
Larry emits one there is a rash of people who think the world has needed
to know or cares that it's not what they wanted or needed to use. It's the
typic
Dear Dan,
Be of good cheer. If you build it, they will come.
> been about as good for my ego as, say, swimsuit
> modelling would be.
Most everyone would agree we'd rather see Dan (or Damian or even Larry)
in a swimsuit than Uri (unless there is a bullseye near the bench he's
preched on; how muc
At 16:30 -0500 2003.03.17, Joe Johnston wrote:
>I rather wish this entire Boston.pm thread had been devoted to the
>last episdoe of Farscape showing this Friday on SciFi. Farscape's
>untimely cancellation is indeed worthy of lamentation and tears.
Dude, I am sitting on pins and needles over it!
N
At 4:24 PM -0500 3/17/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mikey Smelto wrote:
"I use a computer to accomplish tasks,
> not to accomplish using the computer."
Just because they're putting something
into perl 6 that doesn't help you get your
job done, doesn't mean that they're doing
it simply for an ego
* Mikey Smelto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [03-03-17 15:59]:
>
> "I stopped caring about perl 6 because I use a computer to accomplish
> tasks, not to accomplish using the computer."
Giddy with having just filed my taxes, I'd like to add a little something
to this worried discussion about Perl 6 and the
Mikey Smelto wrote:
> "I use a computer to accomplish tasks,
> not to accomplish using the computer."
I get your point, but you're using perl.
USING perl is about getting your job done.
DESIGNING perl is about getting everyone's job done.
Just because they're putting something
into perl 6 that
At 8:54 PM + 3/17/03, Mikey Smelto wrote:
I don't know if I can agree with that statement. As I paraphrase an
anonymous co-worker at an anonymous workplace.
"I stopped caring about perl 6 because I use a computer to
accomplish tasks, not to accomplish using the computer."
Good grief, the amo
I don't know if I can agree with that statement. As I paraphrase an
anonymous co-worker at an anonymous workplace.
"I stopped caring about perl 6 because I use a computer to accomplish tasks,
not to accomplish using the computer."
perl 6 will be more complex than perl 5,
but I think the phil
> Apocalyse 6 included almost
> 30 pages discussing the new ==>
> and <== operators! This is not a good sign.
The apocalypses read like the tome of an advanced
wizard making notes for himself in preparation for
casting some earth-altering spell.
And ya know, that's kind of what it is...
But I
PerlMonks - Original Message - From: Elaine -HFB- Ashton Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 2:23 AM To: Tolkin, Steve Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Boston.pm] Perl 6 has become too complex Tolkin, Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] quoth:*>I think I am in the same camp as Chris Nandor and J
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 10:53:53AM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 09:59:42PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > well, this is what will be supported which is named nested subs.
> > it looks to be compiled but callable only from within the outer sub and
> > it has access to the ou
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 12:19:18PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > "AP" == Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> AP> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 09:59:42PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
> >>
> >> my $c;
> >> sub foo() {
> >> my $a;
> >> my $b;
> >>
> >> my sub bar() {
> >> $
> "AP" == Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AP> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 09:59:42PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
>>
>> my $c;
>> sub foo() {
>> my $a;
>> my $b;
>>
>> my sub bar() {
>> $b = $a + $c;
>> }
>>
>> bar();
>> }
>>
>> is that close enough?
AP
At 11:53 -0500 2003.03.15, Wizard wrote:
>I don't view it as a problem, and I didn't mean to imply that I thought
>Perl5 would be any sort of second-string language, only that it may very
>well become relegated to tasks other than a production language.
OK, you and I must have very different defin
> This somewhat misses my point. The lack of migration of many users should
> not be viewed as a problem, necessarily, but as a difference of opinion, a
> choice. The widespread view that people who stick with Perl 5 will be
> sticking with an old, crufty, slow, backward, legacy language is the v
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 09:59:42PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
> well, this is what will be supported which is named nested subs.
> it looks to be compiled but callable only from within the outer sub and
> it has access to the outer subs vars.
>
> my $c;
> sub foo() {
> my $a;
>
At 08:35 -0500 2003.03.15, Wizard wrote:
>This is a similar problem to what Apache2 has had. Apache2 is definitely a
>superior product, but is so different from 1 that the adoption rate has been
>somewhat slow. What the Perl6 developers need to do is to make sure that the
>migration is as simple as
On Saturday, March 15, 2003, at 10:11 AM, Mikey Smelto wrote:
You forgot to mention that we will all have to deal with suggesting
perl5 to project managers/decision makers(read: people who don't
understand anything) as a language of choice for projects of the
future, and explain to them why we
You forgot to mention that we will all have to deal with suggesting perl5 to
project managers/decision makers(read: people who don't understand anything)
as a language of choice for projects of the future, and explain to them why
we don't want to use the newest version of the language, and havin
> My only real concern is that when Perl 6 comes out, the community will be
> fractured, and we -- you, me, Larry, Damian -- will need to work to
> minimize the damage, for the benefit of Perl 5 and Perl 6 users. We will
> need to deal with CPAN/PAUSE/RT/search, we will need to deal with IRC and
>
At 18:36 -0500 2003.03.14, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 06:00:59PM -0500, Tolkin, Steve wrote:
>> I think I am in the same camp as Chris Nandor and John Tobey.
>> They, and I, have just given up on Perl 6.
>
>I would say don't give up. Unless you need it within the next
>couple y
Tolkin, Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] quoth:
*>I think I am in the same camp as Chris Nandor and John Tobey.
*>They, and I, have just given up on Perl 6.
*>
*>But there is a problem in staying with Perl 5.
*>Due to Perl 6 the Perl 5 community is deprived of the
*>resources of several key people, e.g. La
On Friday, March 14, 2003, at 09:59 PM, Uri Guttman wrote:
well, this is what will be supported which is named nested subs.
Why not make all named nested subs 'my'? Is there any valid reason to
have
a non-'my' (that is, globally scoped) nested sub?
_
> "JT" == John Tobey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JT> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:49:21PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> At 10:14 AM -0500 3/14/03, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
>> >
>> >A6 says that, as in Perl 5, only anonymous subs are closures. I've
>> >always thought of the fact that Perl
Since I appear to have contributed to the problem ... :-)
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 06:00:59PM -0500, Tolkin, Steve wrote:
> I think I am in the same camp as Chris Nandor and John Tobey.
> They, and I, have just given up on Perl 6.
I would say don't give up. Unless you need it within the next
coup
First, I have to (sheepishly) stand up on the side of Perl6 (ok, so maybe
one foot is across the line). I like the fact that perl6-language is at
least making an effort to fix the things that we don't like in Perl5. There
are things in it that concern me some, but I can't try it so I don't know if
On Friday, March 14, 2003, at 09:13 AM, Tolkin, Steve wrote:
"When one is designing the successor to a relatively small,
elegant, and successful system, there is a tendency to become
grandiose in one's success and design an elephantine feature-laden
monstrosity."
I know too little about Perl 6 to
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 04:31:06PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 04:32:17PM -0500, John Tobey wrote:
> >
> > YES. That's what we want. That is how Scheme and Common Lisp work.
> > That would make for cleaner code.
>
> Well, Common Lisp and Scheme don't work quite the sa
subsidiaries or affiliates.
> -Original Message-
> From: John Tobey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 4:51 PM
> To: Dan Sugalski
> Cc: Andrew Pimlott; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Boston.pm] Perl 6 has become too complex
>
>
> On Fri,
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 04:17:08PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > bar() -> undef
> > foo("a")
> > bar() -> "a"
> > foo("b")
> > bar() -> "b"
Um, the last one is -> "a".
Andrew
___
Boston-pm maili
At 4:17 PM -0500 3/14/03, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:49:21PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:14 AM -0500 3/14/03, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
>A6 says that, as in Perl 5, only anonymous subs are closures. I've
>always thought of the fact that Perl 5 named subs are not closures
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 04:32:17PM -0500, John Tobey wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:49:21PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 10:14 AM -0500 3/14/03, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > >
> > >A6 says that, as in Perl 5, only anonymous subs are closures. I've
> > >always thought of the fact that Perl 5
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 04:35:07PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> >YES. That's what we want. That is how Scheme and Common Lisp work.
> >That would make for cleaner code.
>
> Well, if that's what you want... :)
>
> I'm OK with that. Convince Larry and I'll make it happen.
Thanks but I'll pas
At 4:32 PM -0500 3/14/03, John Tobey wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:49:21PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:14 AM -0500 3/14/03, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
>
>A6 says that, as in Perl 5, only anonymous subs are closures. I've
>always thought of the fact that Perl 5 named subs are not closures
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:49:21PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 10:14 AM -0500 3/14/03, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
>
> >A6 says that, as in Perl 5, only anonymous subs are closures. I've
> >always thought of the fact that Perl 5 named subs are not closures
> >as a bug kept for compatibility.
>
> We
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:49:21PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 10:14 AM -0500 3/14/03, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> >
> >A6 says that, as in Perl 5, only anonymous subs are closures. I've
> >always thought of the fact that Perl 5 named subs are not closures
> >as a bug kept for compatibility.
>
>
At 10:14 AM -0500 3/14/03, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 09:30:06AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Still... What exactly about A6 did you dislike? It's a bit big, but
there's nothing in it that seemed particularly controversial or
foolish to me, and I tend to get cranky with the new
"Tolkin, Steve" wrote:
> I think the language design shows
> too much influence of "Evil Damian".
Dude, you're creeping me out.
The way I see it is this:
Perl 5 is cool in that it hides a lot of the
details under the hood, and has a rich set of
DWIM capabilities. But, really, it doesn't have
Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> sub foo
> {
> my ($x, $y, $z) = @_;
> sub helper
> {
> ... $x $y $z ...
> }
> ...
> ... helper() ...
> ... helper() ...
> ...
> }
>
> In Perl 5 you can get around this by assigning
> an
At 09:30 -0500 2003.03.14, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>At 9:13 AM -0500 3/14/03, Tolkin, Steve wrote:
>>I want "good Damian" to work with Larry el al. to reduce the
>>complexity of the language. Or (shudder) a subset of the language to
>>be defined.
>>
>>Please advise me as to how to proceed.
>
>Ruby and
I've never understood why nested Perl subs weren't closures
from the very beginning. I consider this a BUG and I'd like to see it
fixed in Perl 6 (if not earlier!)
What possible utility is there in the current semantics?
___
Boston-pm mailing list
[EMAI
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 09:30:06AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Still... What exactly about A6 did you dislike? It's a bit big, but
> there's nothing in it that seemed particularly controversial or
> foolish to me, and I tend to get cranky with the new features.
How 'bout this one. (I mean to b
At 9:13 AM -0500 3/14/03, Tolkin, Steve wrote:
In Apocalyse 6 http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2003/03/07/apocalypse6.html
Larry Wall explains how subroutines are going to work in
Perl 6. I think this is the straw that broke the camel's back.
I think this is the worst case of "second system syndrome" I
h
hi
( 03.03.14 09:13 -0500 ) Tolkin, Steve:
> Please advise me as to how to proceed.
i think you can email either damian or larry [psuedo-] directly. or post
something on perlmonks.org.
or you can start your own fork of the perl code- that's one of the
benefits of open source.
--
.--- ... [ x
In Apocalyse 6 http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2003/03/07/apocalypse6.html
Larry Wall explains how subroutines are going to work in
Perl 6. I think this is the straw that broke the camel's back.
I think this is the worst case of "second system syndrome" I
have ever seen (See Jargon file e.g. at
http:/
55 matches
Mail list logo