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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
on 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
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?
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
> 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
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;
>
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
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
> 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
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.
> "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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
>
>
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
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
>
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
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
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
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.
--
.--- ... [
42 matches
Mail list logo
