>I admire micro-kernel-type systems. C and Java give you no functions out of
>the box. Keywords are just that, keywords. I believe python is like this
>as well. The idea being that everything has to come from a module.. This
>limits how much a new developer has to learn, and it doesn't pollute the
>global name-space pool. Though I would advocate OO interfaces to
>everything, I'm sure that it would defeat a lot of perl's flexibilty, and so
A very long time ago, when Perl first came out, people would try to
make Perl "just like C". That today the impetus is toward Java
is still really the same story. Fortunately, Larry didn't do it
then, and I don't see it happening now.
Perl is not into minimalism or non-redunancy: diagonals and all,
eh? And I don't see objects ever becoming in Perl the Way, the
Truth, and the Light without which no man cometh unto his data, for
that would be too dictatorial in its Thou-Shalt-nesses.
We've already got lots of those sorts of languages, as you have
noted. They're a long, long ways from what I would call "fun", an
essential element of Perl that doesn't get mentioned enough.
But we shall see; perhaps Larry will get a new religion and set
about changing the world in a radically different fashion than his
previous style.
--tom
