Greg Boug wrote: > Sometimes a minimalist approach > is the right way to do it... If one believes that, wrt programming languages, then one is opposed to the philosophy of Perl. Oh well. > The problem is to make sure when > using a minimalist approach that you don't make it too small... If you don't make it as small as *possible*, regardless of the practical consequences, then you're not taking a minimalist approach. > Oh, and BTW, please define "better"... That's a secondary issue. > I'm gonna assume that "better" means "what Larry determines > to be a useful addition to the language"... That's not a useful definition, because it would be tautological. -- John Porter
- RE: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Dan Sugalski
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Trond Michelsen
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Ariel Scolnicov
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Dan Sugalski
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 John Porter
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Dan Sugalski
- RE: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Greg Boug
- RE: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Peter Scott
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 John Porter
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 John Porter
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Simon Cozens
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 John Porter
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Simon Cozens
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Dan Sugalski
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Nathan Torkington
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 David Grove
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 John Porter
- RE: Larry's Apocalypse 1 David Whipp
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Larry Wall
- Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1 Dan Sugalski