Michael Mathews [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm glad you made that point. If I understand your statement, it's a
common gain cited by Perl 6 (actually Parrot) advocates: you can mix
languages. But a point I was trying to make was that while this is fun
for us developers, managers hate it, with
- Original Message
From: Brad Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
let variables and hypothetical assignments within rules may be a
good starting point.
Hi Brad,
Caveat: I'm also tremendously underqualified to to make serious proposals here.
Interesting idea. As I understand hypothetical
Michael Mathews schreef:
[compile down to a *language independent* format]
So does that mean I can write a module in Perl 6, deliver it to Mr.
Customer as byte-code. Then Mr. Customer can decompile(?) it into
Python (or JavaScript, or C, etc), edit it, and then compile it back
into working
Hi Affijn,
As I gradually learn how Parrot works, I see that perhaps the idea of
decompiling byte-code into language ___ is only a pipe-dream. But the
point still remains--using the fact that one *could* mix languages X,
Y, and P into your company's source tree is a very weak argument for
As I gradually learn how Parrot works, I see that perhaps the idea of
decompiling byte-code into language ___ is only a pipe-dream. But the
point still remains--using the fact that one *could* mix languages X,
Y, and P into your company's source tree is a very weak argument for
Parrot/Perl6.
* Michael Mathews [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-05-26 12:45]:
In the end it was decided to rewrite that chunk in Perl. I can
tell you, there definitely was cursing in the office that day,
and I doubt anyone there would see it as a plus to have the
ability to mix languages more easily. I just
On 26/05/06, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Michael Mathews [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-05-26 12:45]:
In the end it was decided to rewrite that chunk in Perl. I can
tell you, there definitely was cursing in the office that day,
and I doubt anyone there would see it as a plus to have the
Michael Mathews schreef:
[attribution repaired] Ruud:
[attribution repaired] Michael:
(Michael previously sent me an independent off-list reply; we're back on
the list now)
As I gradually learn how Parrot works, I see that perhaps the idea
of decompiling byte-code into language ___ is only a
[
I am sorry this will not respond directly to the message in question as
I have not seen it in my inbox. I hope the attribution is correct though.
]
On 5/26/06, Dr.Ruud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not really. Think about a Cobol-to-Parrot translator. You could for
example use Perl (glue) to
Gabor Szabo schreef:
{Cobol etc.]
IMHO - and I really saw only a few such companies - these companies
have 0 automatic tests so it would cost them a lot of time and money
to test their application on the new and shiny Cobol compiler.
I once worked on tests for a national center of a bank, to
From a language standpoint, I think this is a great solution. As Jonathan
suggests, have a default knowledge base that is referenced by default, with
the option to declare more knowledgebases. Each one can have facts set and
queries exectued seperately. I have only a passing knowledge of Prolog,
* Michael Mathews [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-05-26 13:40]:
But then I'm seeking to learn here so can you give a nice juicy
example of a non-C library that would be a big plus to be able
to include in Perl?
There are several Python projects that I wish I could use without
having to reimplement
On May 26, 2006, at 6:37 AM, Michael Mathews wrote:
I use the expat and libxslt libraries (both in C) regularly via perl,
so I guess I must agree that there is a distinction -- thank you for
clarifying that. But I can't think of any examples where I was stuck
because I couldn't use a library
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 12:37:31PM +0100, Michael Mathews wrote:
I use the expat and libxslt libraries (both in C) regularly via perl,
so I guess I must agree that there is a distinction -- thank you for
clarifying that. But I can't think of any examples where I was stuck
because I couldn't
Hi,
I used AI::Prolog once briefly, and that's the extent of my logic programming
knowledge. There do seem to be a few Perl 6 features that may be useful for
logic programming, although I'm not really qualified to judge.
How would one assert facts and rules in Perl6? How would one know
that
This topic may be better suited to perl6-language, unless you consider
its denizens to already be self-selected against logic programming. :)
Larry
- Original Message
From: David Romano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
duplicate results and this is almost always wrong. (See
http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/28378
for an SQL example of this problem).
I re-read your journal entry and comments (I had read it back when you
first had posted
.
Web Programming with Perl -- http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/
- Forwarded Message
From: Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: perl6-users@perl.org
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 11:40:54 AM
Subject: Re: Logic Programming for Perl6 (Was Re: 3 Good Reasons... (typo
alert!))
- Original
Michael Mathews [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So my question to the list is, in simple terms even an IT manager
could grasp, explain what problems Perl 5 has that Perl 6 fixes,
such that they would want to undergo the pain of ever switching.
From a Perl point of view: there should be no pain.
At
Hi Steffen,
I'm glad you made that point. If I understand your statement, it's a
common gain cited by Perl 6 (actually Parrot) advocates: you can mix
languages. But a point I was trying to make was that while this is fun
for us developers, managers hate it, with very good reason. Having one
Hmm...
How about this:
Treat each knowledge base as an object, with at least two methods:
.fact() takes the argument list and constructs a prolog-like fact or
rule out of it, which then gets added to the knowledge base.
.query() takes the argument list, constructs a prolog-like query out
of it,
* Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-05-25 20:45]:
The first hurdle would be the syntax. The programmer just
looking at the code would need to know when one section of code
represents a snippet of logic programming. Is the following a
function call or a Prolog fact?
loves( 'foo', 'bar' );
Open Question:
I realise I haven't kept up with every detail since the Perl6 RFC I
submitted way back in August 2000, but boy was I surprised to find,
now that I can actually use Perl6, it isn't just an improvement to
Perl (5), it's actually a different language (I'm quoting Michael
Schwern
what problems Perl 5 has that Perl 6 fixes
A type system to die for.
I think that is enough of a win on its own that mentioning any of the
other features will only muddy the issue :-
--
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who
are laughed at are geniuses. They
- Original Message
From: Michael Mathews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So my question to the list is, in simple terms even an IT manager
could grasp, explain what problems Perl 5 has that Perl 6 fixes, such
that they would want to undergo the pain of ever switching.
Hi Michael,
Many
Sheesh. I type things too fast and then I see the horrifying typos I've made
(blush)
- Original Message
From: Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED]
do things that is hard to do in other languages.
do things that *are* hard to do in other languages
Perl6 not only fixes a lot of that cruft but
Ah, perfect example Daniel. I know people say things like Java is
better for big projects because of the strictness of it's typing. I
respond that Perl isn't intrinsically sloppy if you practice good
coding, it just doesn't straightjacket you into that all the time.
So here's Perl 6 and it has
Thanks for that Ovid. I agree that any language must stand on it's
merits in the long-term, but there is an undeniable hump every new
language must get over to convince people it's worth trying in the
first place.
From your excellent summary I think speed, CLR and real OO should
definitely
* Michael Mathews [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-05-25 00:45]:
Is there something in Perl 6 akin to a use strict switch that
will apply the straightjacket some projects need, and thus
force typing of all variables. (Then I could have a good
comeback for those damned Java guys.)
It’s called Company
Hi Ovid,
On 5/24/06, Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As an aside for those who, like me, wanted to see support for logic
programming: the only significant disappoinment I have with Perl6 is also,
oddly enough, accompanied by a sigh of relief. Perl6 will easily support
imperative, functional
30 matches
Mail list logo
