It's a valid aside to note that, while people know what singular and
plural are, few people use or even refer much to the Greek use of a
special intermediary (the dual) when there were exectly two of
something...but the basic mindest of dichotomy is a fundament of the
language. (c.f. the men/de co
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 10:48:34PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
: No one mentioned that if it wasn't for sigils, many strings would be
: increased, length-wise, to do operator concatentation. If it wasn't for
: that then simple string insertions couldn't be used.
Well, except you can interpolate
Thomas Wittek wrote:
Moritz Lenz schrieb:
What makes Perl hard to read is the excessive use of special characters
(/\W/).
I disagree: The make it look ugly, but not hard to read.
Even if it's "only" ugly: To what advantage? I don't think ugliness is a
good characteristic of a programming la
OK! Be concrete ! :-) ( Hart wie Beton !)
As Ruby and Python are getting more and more attraction [1][2] I think
they do something right, that Perl doesn't.
What I think where both (especially Python) do better is in readable
code.
What makes Perl hard to read is the excessive use of special
On 5/14/07, Thomas Wittek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Moritz Lenz schrieb:
>> What makes Perl hard to read is the excessive use of special characters
>> (/\W/).
>
> I disagree: The make it look ugly, but not hard to read.
Even if it's "only" ugly: To what advantage? I don't think ugliness is a
g
Mark J. Reed wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
> Good examples. Now could you provide some to explain to me why it's
> important to distinguish between '$', '@', '%', and '&'? I ask
> because I've seen a lot of object-based code that has said stuff like
> '$container{$key}';
Well, $container{$key} i
Thomas Wittek skribis 2007-05-15 1:03 (+0200):
> > On the other hand, the overall structure of a program is often more
> > obvious, exactly because so much more fits in one screenful.
> My suggestions won't have an impact on the expressiveness of Perl.
Not so.
Consider /@foo/, which is an altern
Austin Hastings:
> A similar trade-off exists with the statement terminating semicolon. In
> this case, it involves the number of statements per line:
>
> A language that terminates statements can ignore whitespace, allowing
> multiple statements per line and statements that span multiple lines.
Jonathan Lang skribis 2007-05-14 14:52 (-0700):
> Good examples. Now could you provide some to explain to me why it's
> important to distinguish between '$', '@', '%', and '&'?
It's useful code self documentation, but not very important, in my
opinion.
If you have sigils, it makes sense to have
Juerd Waalboer schrieb:
> Thomas Wittek skribis 2007-05-14 0:42 (+0200):
>> excessive use of special characters (/\W/).
>
> This seems to be "I don't like regexes". Ignoring for now that Perl 6
> regexes will be more verbose and thus easier to read for someone without
> much prior exposure to the
Thomas Wittek wrote:
chromatic wrote:
theproblemlinguisticallyspeakingisthatsometimes [snipped]
I can't remember that I said that you shouldn't separate your
expressions (by punctation/whitspaces),
$.but! (*adding$ %*characters _+that^# &$might) @#not_ !#be()
!&necessary_ *#$doesn't! *
On 5/14/07, Jonathan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Good examples. Now could you provide some to explain to me why it's
important to distinguish between '$', '@', '%', and '&'? I ask
because I've seen a lot of object-based code that has said stuff like
'$container{$key}';
Well, $container{$k
Good examples. Now could you provide some to explain to me why it's
important to distinguish between '$', '@', '%', and '&'? I ask
because I've seen a lot of object-based code that has said stuff like
'$container{$key}'; it seems that there's an assumption that $foo can
be used as a list, a hash
Thomas Wittek skribis 2007-05-14 22:31 (+0200):
> $.but! (*adding$ %*characters _+that^# &$might) @#not_ !#be()
> !&necessary_ *#$doesn't! *(make) [EMAIL PROTECTED] =_easier
Those characters are meaningless. The many symbols in Perl 6 have very
distinct meanings, which makes them very powerful too
Thomas Wittek skribis 2007-05-14 22:20 (+0200):
> But I think that the name of an identifier (noun/verb, single/plural,
> the meaning of the word) already gives enough context to understand what
> type it is.
So is "user_id" a variable or a type? How about "substring" or
"document"?
Is "new" a fu
At 11:43 -0700 5/14/07, Larry Wall wrote:
>In other words, the sigil is consistently a noun marker in Perl 6, even when a
>sigil is used on a verb.
It would seem to me that a preprocessor, written in perl of course, could
easily respond to "DIMENSION noun AS double" statements or whatever you li
chromatic wrote:
> theproblemlinguisticallyspeakingisthatsometimes [snipped]
I can't remember that I said that you shouldn't separate your
expressions (by punctation/whitspaces),
$.but! (*adding$ %*characters _+that^# &$might) @#not_ !#be()
!&necessary_ *#$doesn't! *(make) [EMAIL PROTECTED] =_easi
Frank Wiles schrieb:
> Take a look at
> actual code written in other languages and you'll find many variable
> names that end in things like _ary, _array, _dict, _list, etc.
Actually I've not seen that often. Where I've seen it frequently is in
Visual Basic and Delphi/Pascal.
I hated it too.
But
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 02:21:47PM -0400, Ryan Richter wrote:
: In Perl 6, the & sigil is used to distinguish between
:
: foo bar
:
: which calls bar and passes the return value to foo, and
:
: foo &bar
:
: which passes bar as a Code object to foo.
In other words, the sigil is consistently a n
Thomas Wittek skribis 2007-05-14 0:42 (+0200):
> excessive use of special characters (/\W/).
This seems to be "I don't like regexes". Ignoring for now that Perl 6
regexes will be more verbose and thus easier to read for someone without
much prior exposure to them, what would you suggest as an alt
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 20:41:35 +0300, Gabor Szabo wrote:
> On 5/14/07, John Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Removing the sigil
> > on a function call (it used to always be written &sub(args...))
> > did, I think, lead to the difficulty in perl5 where it became
> > difficult to add new k
OK! Be concrete ! :-) ( Hart wie Beton !)
As Ruby and Python are getting more and more attraction [1][2] I think
they do something right, that Perl doesn't.
What I think where both (especially Python) do better is in readable
code.
What makes Perl hard to read is the excessive use of specia
On 5/14/07, John Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Removing the sigil
on a function call (it used to always be written &sub(args...))
did, I think, lead to the difficulty in perl5 where it became
difficult to add new keyword operators to the language - because
they could conflict with subrout
On Mon, 14 May 2007 12:51:53 +0200
Thomas Wittek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reason? I still haven't seen a good justification for sigils.
This may not qualify as a "good justification", but it is one I've
discussed with others and rings true for many. Take a look at
actual code writ
Moritz Lenz wrote:
> Thomas Wittek wrote:
>> Moritz Lenz schrieb:
I would also like semicolons to be optional.
>>> Most people don't ;-).
>> Oh, really? Source? :)
>
> I paraphrased Larry Wall. Iirc it was "everybody wants the semicolon" or
> something - correct me if I'm wrong.
sorry, masa
Thomas Wittek wrote:
> Moritz Lenz schrieb:
>>> What makes Perl hard to read is the excessive use of special characters
>>> (/\W/).
>>
>> I disagree: The make it look ugly, but not hard to read.
>
> Even if it's "only" ugly: To what advantage? I don't think ugliness is a
> good characteristic of a
Thomas Wittek wrote:
> BTW: Why do so much people say "go away if you don't like it" instead of
> being open for ideas and discussing them from a neutral point of view?
because the design process of perl 6 started long time ago, and if we
incooperate major changes to it, no implementation will eve
On Monday 14 May 2007 04:35:19 Thomas Wittek wrote:
> BTW: Why do so much people say "go away if you don't like it" instead of
> being open for ideas and discussing them from a neutral point of view?
Perhaps you're not a native English speaker, but running into the room and
saying "Perl 6 doesn'
On Monday 14 May 2007 04:28:15 Thomas Wittek wrote:
> > I'm not a friend of potential conflicts between built-in operators and my
> > identifier names (and especially the conflicts between scalar, aggregate,
> > type, and function names).
> As I partially wrote Moritz, I
> a) don't think that it'
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 02:36:10PM +0200, Thomas Wittek wrote:
> Andy Armstrong schrieb:
> >On 14 May 2007, at 12:31, Thomas Wittek wrote:
> >>How did C, C#, Java, Ruby, Python, Lua, JavaScript, Visual Basic, etc.
> >>know?
> >>They didn't.
> >>If there is a new release, you always have to check i
Andy Armstrong schrieb:
On 14 May 2007, at 12:31, Thomas Wittek wrote:
How did C, C#, Java, Ruby, Python, Lua, JavaScript, Visual Basic, etc.
know?
They didn't.
If there is a new release, you always have to check if your code still
runs.
I think that may be the point I'm making.
Your point
> herbert breunung schrieb:
> > please make a decision for you to program in a language [..]
> > [..] try python. [..]
>
> Oh, just because I think that they've some smart design decisions?
> Why not steal them?
>
> BTW: Why do so much people say "go away if you don't like it" instead of
> bei
I'm so tired of hearing how unreadable Perl is. It's specious. "But
if so many people think it..." Uh-uh. Instinctive reactions can be
both universal and incorrect...and I think that's what this is. At
least, among those who have even bothered to look into Perl instead of
just repeating FUD.
herbert breunung schrieb:
please make a decision for you to program in a language [..]
> [..] try python. [..]
Oh, just because I think that they've some smart design decisions?
Why not steal them?
BTW: Why do so much people say "go away if you don't like it" instead of
being open for ideas a
On 14 May 2007, at 12:31, Thomas Wittek wrote:
How did C, C#, Java, Ruby, Python, Lua, JavaScript, Visual Basic,
etc. know?
They didn't.
If there is a new release, you always have to check if your code
still runs.
I think that may be the point I'm making.
--
Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
Andy Armstrong schrieb:
On 14 May 2007, at 11:51, Thomas Wittek wrote:
I also can't remember that I ever named a variable like a "reserved
word" or operator. And even if I could, I'd consider it to be bad style.
How did you know which reserved words and operators were going to be
introduced i
chromatic wrote:
Global variables with cryptic names, that no beginner can make any sense
of by reading it. And after not working with "$<" for some months I
can't remember it either, although I've got quite some Perl experience.
Most of those have gone away.
Oh, some someone must agree that
On 14 May 2007, at 11:51, Thomas Wittek wrote:
I also can't remember that I ever named a variable like a "reserved
word" or operator. And even if I could, I'd consider it to be bad
style.
How did you know which reserved words and operators were going to be
introduced in the future so you c
Moritz Lenz schrieb:
What makes Perl hard to read is the excessive use of special characters
(/\W/).
I disagree: The make it look ugly, but not hard to read.
Even if it's "only" ugly: To what advantage? I don't think ugliness is a
good characteristic of a programming language.
Global vari
> And to attract contributors, you have to have a convincing vision.
right
please make a decision for you to program in a language that has fame
or one that you like most. as moritz said the special variables are now
better sorted and some changes you write about are too far from perls
basic pr
On Sunday 13 May 2007 15:42:30 Thomas Wittek wrote:
> What makes Perl hard to read is the excessive use of special characters
> (/\W/).
It also makes Mandarin and other ideographic languages impossible to read. As
evidence I admit that, though I am very smart, *I* can't read them.
(Try to ignor
Thomas Wittek wrote:
> chromatic schrieb:
>> On Thursday 03 May 2007 03:06:43 Andrew Shitov wrote:
>>> What is nedded is a very simple step:
>> Contributors.
>
> And to attract contributors, you have to have a convincing vision.
> I'm not sure, if the (current) Perl6 specs are convincing enough to
chromatic schrieb:
> On Thursday 03 May 2007 03:06:43 Andrew Shitov wrote:
>> What is nedded is a very simple step:
> Contributors.
And to attract contributors, you have to have a convincing vision.
I'm not sure, if the (current) Perl6 specs are convincing enough to
attract the developers out ther
On Thursday 03 May 2007 03:06:43 Andrew Shitov wrote:
> What is nedded is a very simple step:
Contributors.
-- c
44 matches
Mail list logo
