On Monday 07 November 2005 09:26 am, Rob Kinyon wrote: > On 11/7/05, Michele Dondi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Rob Kinyon wrote: > > > So, for a bit of extra complexity, I get peace of mind for myself and > > > my users. > > > > The point being, and I'm stressing it once again but no more than once, > > that maybe we're adding two bits of extra complexity, whereas just one > > bit not only would have been enough, but would have bought you even more > > peace of mind. Then again: this is a _feeling_ I got e.g. by reading the > > appearently endless discussions about the specifications of sub > > parameters, which seem to ensue inherent technical difficulties having to > > do with the attempt _conciliate_ too many different paradigms. > > [...] > Though, I do find the complexity reassuring. I like having the > options, even though I will never use them. The alternative is Perl5, > where you can do (almost) anything you could want, except you have you > jump through lots of hoops and you end up with something that works, > but really really slowly. No-one wants that.
But it's not such a black-and-white thing. If 1 bit of complexity covers 90% of cases, 10 bits gets you 99%, 100 bits gets you 99.9%, and so on, where do you stop? Where do you say "okay, I think we're doing good enough, let's not add more complexity" ? Especially when that complexity isn't optional. I think that's really a common "fear", that Perl 6 is going well beyond that point of sensibility. If you want to get into personal beliefs, I think that function signatures are such a complexity quagmire -- and that they're line-noise ugly to boot. Andrew
