>Johan Vromans wrote:
>>
>> If a Perl construct does not suffer from a slight change that makes
>> it easier to accept by new programmers, I think such changes should
>> be seriously considered.
>
>Yes; but the world if full of language [sorry, couldn't resist]
>which is optimized (or at least meant to be) for the learner;
>Larry wants Perl to be optimized for the programmer.
>Unfortunately, to the two optimizations are mostly disjoint.
this is completely false when applied to real programming languages.
=> example 1: php
=> relatively easy to learn
. retains basic perl syntax
. less cryptic (but more verbose)
. tight integration to databases (mySQL)
=> relatively easy to master
=> now the world's #1 scripting language for dynamic web content ;-)
=> example 2: ruby
=> relatively easy to learn
. simple, elegant syntax
. less cryptic without verbosity
. adds perl's regular expressions
. exploits other languages (c, java, perl...)
. in-line modules
. tight integration with c
=> relatively easy to master
=> now more popular than python in its native japan
=> now in us and europe - where it will displace perl and python... ;-)
qed: you need a new language designer(s), not tired-out god-figures.
cheers!
yaphet
heretics of perl;
--
