At 09:29 PM 11/19/2001 +0100, Benoit Cerrina wrote:
> > Dan wrote:
> > I've reasonably good hope for Ruby, too, but nobody seemed to have heard
>of
> > it. That's hopefully changed. (I made a point of mentioning it, as it is a
> > really nice language and one of our targets)
>Yes, I discovered it
Where I studied, they liked ML (objective caml actually) and prolog...
Benoit
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Sugalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Perl 6 Internals" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 6:57 P
> Dan wrote:
> I've reasonably good hope for Ruby, too, but nobody seemed to have heard
of
> it. That's hopefully changed. (I made a point of mentioning it, as it is a
> really nice language and one of our targets)
Yes, I discovered it a year ago and fell in love with the language, now what
it
nee
At 12:35 PM 11/19/2001 -0500, John Siracusa wrote:
>On 11/19/01 12:25 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >> Or is this just the academic distaste for Perl syntax showing through?
> >
> > Sort of.
>
>How "academics" can dislike Perl's syntax aesthetics and yet like
>Smalltalk's is beyond me.
Wrong crowd. W
On 11/19/01 12:25 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Python's got a good shot at things, as it seems to be the 'dirty little
> secret' of the academic world--it's the practical language people admit to
> using when they're actually doing something.
Sounds familiar...
> I've reasonably good hope for Ruby,
At 11:55 AM 11/19/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
>Simon Cozens wrote:
> > Us: We're working on this, that and the other.
> > Them: Pshaw. We solved those problems thirty years ago.
>
>Were Perl and Python both grouped into the same category
>of re-inventing the wheel?
More or less. Oddly enough, for
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 11:55:50AM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
> Were Perl and Python both grouped into the same category
> of re-inventing the wheel?
Yes.
> Or is this just the academic distaste for Perl syntax showing through?
Don't forget that Python doesn't have a formally-defined language
spec
Simon Cozens wrote:
> Us: We're working on this, that and the other.
> Them: Pshaw. We solved those problems thirty years ago.
Were Perl and Python both grouped into the same category
of re-inventing the wheel? Or is this just the academic
distaste for Perl syntax showing through? I had hoped tha
At 09:44 AM 11/19/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
>Can't find any articles or notes on what happened
>at the conference.
Video should be up on Dr. Dobb's Journal's website at some point.
www.ddj.com. Links up on the workshop site at http://ll1.mit.edu soon, I
hope. Things did just happen this weeken
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:17:31PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Oh, be fair, I've only just got off a plane. :)
Executive summary:
Us: We're working on this, that and the other.
Them: Pshaw. We solved those problems thirty years ago.
Us: Yes, but your solutions are unpublished, unadvertised, imp
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 09:44:41AM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
> Can't find any articles or notes on what happened
> at the conference.
Oh, be fair, I've only just got off a plane. :)
Article coming on perl.com this Wednesday or so.
--
In this talk, I would like to speculate a little, on ... the de
Can't find any articles or notes on what happened
at the conference. What happened? I'm really curious
about the "Worse is Better" panel and the talk that
Dan and Simon gave.
- Ken
12 matches
Mail list logo
