We are definitely not on the same thread.
I don't believe that this discussion should go away, but I do believe it
should fork appropriately. We're talking about several things at once and
it's confusing the issues. See off list remarks.
David T. Grove
Blue Square Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL
Dave Storrs writes:
> 1) One of the great strengths of Perl is that its learning curve
> is very shallow but very long. Adding more stuff to the language makes
> the curve steeper, because you need to hold more in your head as you learn
> it.
I see those as orthogonal. I can add more to t
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Dave Storrs writes:
> > < SARCASM=EXTREME>
>
> Everyone, please try to stop the downhill descent of the conversation.
> This is not just Dave, but others in the thread too.
For the record, the original post in this sequence came from Dav
> "Dan" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dan> People think they *must* know all the core bits of a language, and
Dan> they think that consists of all the stuff we ship with perl. (And,
Dan> let's face it, we ship a *lot* of stuff with perl) It's like you're
Dan> not allowed to know
On Wednesday 16 May 2001 16:38, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 01:51:24PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> > Hmm, it'd be interesting to see a Map of Perl. Operators, functions,
> > modules, features, etc. divided up according to topic and complexity
> > and laid out around the ce
On Wednesday 16 May 2001 15:32, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> > I think the biggest fear isn't that Perl is going to grow out of its
> > niche, but that it's going to outgrow it. It's great that Perl has been
> > able to expand to be so many things to so many people, but n
> On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Grove wrote:
>
> > For me, it's the bare minimum amount of Perl you must *use* to
> be productive
> > that I see increasing in our plans and discussions. I'm afraid of Perl
> > turning into a verbose monstrosity to please verbosity addicts
> of languages
> > whose only
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 01:51:24PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Hmm, it'd be interesting to see a Map of Perl. Operators, functions,
> modules, features, etc. divided up according to topic and complexity
> and laid out around the central blob of "Basic Perl" that everyone
> knows (variables,
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 01:32:26PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> In that case, how exactly has it forgotten its roots? I mean, in what
> way is it not as useful as it was before?
[Please forgive the following marketspeak]
The issue isn't that Perl is less useful now. It's that it's shifted
* Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/16/2001 11:25]:
>
> I recently received the following email from someone whose name I
> have snipped.
>
> > * Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/16/2001 08:11]:
> > >
> > > Ok, this is basically a bunch of "me too!"s.
> >
> > Keep the snide comments
At 04:09 PM 5/16/2001 -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
>It's also amazing how long some people can go without seeing a
>statement modifier or non-default delimiters like s{}{};
Or for real fun, qx''; Nothing quite like disabling double-quote
interpolation to flip people out...
Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But at the same time, if you're a lone programmer, there's nothing in
> Perl that forces you to use closures or write your code in modules, or
> anything like that. Those features are there if you need 'em, but if
> you don't, you're okay.
All Per
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 12:49:00PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> If you work in a team, then the bar is raised to the union (not the
> intersection) of everyone's knowledge. But team programming is not
> for small trivial tasks, and if you're solving large complex tasks
> then it's unsurprisi
Nathan Torkington sent the following bits through the ether:
> Hmm, it'd be interesting to see a Map of Perl.
Would a graph be good enough? I'll see what I can do ;-)
Leon
--
Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/
Iterative Software...http://www.iterative-softw
At 01:51 PM 5/16/2001 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Dan Sugalski writes:
> > People think they *must* know all the core bits of a language, and they
> > think that consists of all the stuff we ship with perl. (And, let's face
> > it, we ship a *lot* of stuff with perl) It's like you're not allo
At 01:51 PM 5/16/01 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Hmm, it'd be interesting to see a Map of Perl. Operators, functions,
>modules, features, etc. divided up according to topic and complexity
>and laid out around the central blob of "Basic Perl" that everyone
>knows (variables, assignment, math,
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 01:51:24PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Dan Sugalski writes:
> > People think they *must* know all the core bits of a language, and they
> > think that consists of all the stuff we ship with perl. (And, let's face
> > it, we ship a *lot* of stuff with perl) It's like
Dan Sugalski writes:
> People think they *must* know all the core bits of a language, and they
> think that consists of all the stuff we ship with perl. (And, let's face
> it, we ship a *lot* of stuff with perl) It's like you're not allowed to
> know only a part of a language anymore--that's so
At 01:32 PM 5/16/2001 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> > I think the biggest fear isn't that Perl is going to grow out of its
> niche,
> > but that it's going to outgrow it. It's great that Perl has been able to
> > expand to be so many things to so many people, but no
Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> I think the biggest fear isn't that Perl is going to grow out of its niche,
> but that it's going to outgrow it. It's great that Perl has been able to
> expand to be so many things to so many people, but not at the expense of
> forgetting its roots - of the whole Rig
At 12:49 PM 5/16/2001 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>So I guess I don't see it as that big a problem. Am I missing
>something?
I think you might be. This isn't a problem of reality--it's a problem of
perception and personal tendencies.
People think they *must* know all the core bits of a lan
On Wednesday 16 May 2001 14:49, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> I'm trying to understand what people fear, and why they fear it, so
> that I know how to respond. Ridiculing, inflaming, or exaggerating
> those fears don't make them go away.
I think the biggest fear isn't that Perl is going to grow out
Ariel Scolnicov writes:
> Am I the only one here who's confused?
>
> How does the printing happen in the correct order? I mean, if I said
>
> my $x = "Post order: &show($root, $post)\n";
> print $x;
>
> then (I hope) we're agreed printing would happen in the *wrong* order
> (first the
Felicitations.
Yours, &c, Tony Olekshy
Dave Storrs writes:
> < SARCASM=EXTREME>
Everyone, please try to stop the downhill descent of the conversation.
This is not just Dave, but others in the thread too.
I'm trying to understand what people fear, and why they fear it, so
that I know how to respond. Ridiculing, inflaming, or exaggera
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:14:57AM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
> > afraid of, and to express your concerns about it. However, the way that
> > you chose to do that ("Once quick and dirty dies, Perl dies.") implies
> > that the only thing that Perl is go
I recently received the following email from someone whose name I
have snipped.
> * Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/16/2001 08:11]:
> >
> > Ok, this is basically a bunch of "me too!"s.
>
> Keep the snide comments to yourself. Thanks.
This was regarding a reply I had made
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:14:57AM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
> afraid of, and to express your concerns about it. However, the way that
> you chose to do that ("Once quick and dirty dies, Perl dies.") implies
> that the only thing that Perl is good for is q-n-d
A veritable lesson in logic! Here's
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Adam Turoff wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 08:57:42AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> > It doesn't look to me like the amount of Perl one needs to know to achieve
> > a given level of productivity is increasing in volume or complexity at
> > all. What it looks like to me i
On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Grove wrote:
> For me, it's the bare minimum amount of Perl you must *use* to be productive
> that I see increasing in our plans and discussions. I'm afraid of Perl
> turning into a verbose monstrosity to please verbosity addicts of languages
> whose only point of adv
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and "David Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
m> whispered:
| > I think what Stephen is saying (and he's not the only one) is that
| > the bare minimum amount of Perl you *must* know to be productive
| > is increasing. Either that, or we're giving the impression that
|
At 11:58 AM 5/16/2001 -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
>On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:41:15PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> > Stephen P. Potter writes:
> > > When we moved from 4 to 5, so people thought we should continue
> > > developing 4 without all the "useless" new stuff, like OO and
> > > threads
At 12:45 PM 5/16/01 -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
>On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 08:57:42AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> > It doesn't look to me like the amount of Perl one needs to know to achieve
> > a given level of productivity is increasing in volume or complexity at
> > all. What it looks like to me i
At 10:51 AM 5/16/01 +0200, Carl Johan Berglund wrote:
>At 15.02 -0700 01-05-15, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>> $*ARGS is chomped;
>>
>>I wonder if that wouldn't be better phrased as:
>>
>>autochomp $*ARGS;# $ARGS.autochomp
>
>I see your point, but I see a clear difference between these propertie
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 08:57:42AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> It doesn't look to me like the amount of Perl one needs to know to achieve
> a given level of productivity is increasing in volume or complexity at
> all. What it looks like to me is that there are additional features being
> added
* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/15/2001 17:49]:
>
> Is that autochomp as a keyword or autochomp as an indirect method call
> on $*ARGS?
Who cares? ;-)
> > The thing I worry about is this: I don't think actions should be
> > declared using "is", necessarily.
> >
> >$STDERR is fl
Mark Koopman writes:
: now we can all be linguists!
As they say:
It used to be I couldn't spell lingrist, and now I are one.
Larry
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 09:24:33AM -0700, Mark Koopman wrote:
> > Will ebonics be included in this locale thingy?
> it better, or that's discrimination :|
YM "that be discrimination" HTH.
--
If computer science was a science, computer "scientists" would study what
computer systems do and draw
> It's not so much that Perl shouldn't have data structures or modules.
> I think what Stephen is saying (and he's not the only one) is that
> the bare minimum amount of Perl you *must* know to be productive
> is increasing. Either that, or we're giving the impression that
> it's increasing.
David Grove wrote:
>>--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>Oh, didn't Larry tell you? We're making perl's parser locale-aware so
>>>it uses the local language to determine what the keywords are.
>>>I thought that was in the list of things you'd need to take into
>>>account when you
> --- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oh, didn't Larry tell you? We're making perl's parser locale-aware so
> > it uses the local language to determine what the keywords are.
> > I thought that was in the list of things you'd need to take into
> > account when you wrote the parser...
> It's not so much that Perl shouldn't have data structures or modules.
> I think what Stephen is saying (and he's not the only one) is that
> the bare minimum amount of Perl you *must* know to be productive
> is increasing. Either that, or we're giving the impression that
> it's increasing. Man
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:41:15PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Stephen P. Potter writes:
> > It seems to me that recently (the last two years or so) and
> > especially with 6, perl is no longer the SAs friend. It is no
> > longer a fun litle language that can be easily used to hack out
> >
--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 07:40 AM 5/16/2001 -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> >--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Oh, didn't Larry tell you? We're making perl's parser
> locale-aware so
> > > it uses the local language to determine what the keywords are.
>
Ok, this is basically a bunch of "me too!"s.
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Awesome. Simple, Perlish, easy to read, etc. Also, I see you took the
> suggestion of:
>
>Access through... Perl 5 Perl 6
>= == ==
>Array
At 07:40 AM 5/16/2001 -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
>--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oh, didn't Larry tell you? We're making perl's parser locale-aware so
> > it uses the local language to determine what the keywords are.
> > I thought that was in the list of things you'd need to
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 07:40:19AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
> mios @ventanas son inmutables;
It's all part of the secret plan to make Perl *even more* unmaintainable. :)
--
CLUELESSNESS:
There are No Stupid Questions,
But There Are a LOT of Inquisitive Idiots
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:30:07PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
> > - A while ago, someone suggested that the word 'has' be an alias
> > for 'is', so that when you roll your own properties, you could write
> > more-grammatically-correct statements suc
--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, didn't Larry tell you? We're making perl's parser locale-aware so
> it uses the local language to determine what the keywords are.
> I thought that was in the list of things you'd need to take into
> account when you wrote the parser... ;-P
mi
Jumping the gun a little
With the pluggable parser architecture, would it be a Good/Bad/Ugly Thing to
freeze the parser itself after each Perl release?
One of the omnipresent arguments against any change is how it affects legacy.
Although Perl 6[.0] is a recognizable departure from Perl 5
At 14.07 +0200 01-05-16, Bart Lateur wrote:
>This person obviously expects a pipe effect, i.e. capturing of the
>"printed" output.
>
>Should Perl6 provide one? Is print() really easier to grasp, than
>'return $buffer', with possibly lots of '$buffer.=$append' in the sub?
>Actually, yes, the latter
On Wed, 16 May 2001 13:49:42 +0200, Carl Johan Berglund wrote:
>sub show {print "6"}
>print "Perl ${show()}\n";
>
>(That prints "6Perl", not "Perl 6".)
>
>If you want to call the subroutine in the middle of the string, you
>should make it _return_ something, not print it.
This person obviously
At 10.39 +0300 01-05-16, Ariel Scolnicov wrote:
>How does the printing happen in the correct order? I mean, if I said
>
> my $x = "Post order: &show($root, $post)\n";
> print $x;
>
>then (I hope) we're agreed printing would happen in the *wrong* order
>(first the output of show($root, $po
At 15.02 -0700 01-05-15, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>The only worry/problem/etc that I wonder about is the potential overuse
>of the "is" keyword. It is a very nice syntactic tool, but when I see
>something like this:
>
>$*ARGS is chomped;
>
>I wonder if that wouldn't be better phrased as:
>
>aut
Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Edward Peschko writes:
> > Ok, question here. Are these exegesises 'blessed'? What is open to
> > debate on this?
>
> As Simon says, ask whatever questions you want.
>
> > print "Post order: "; show($root,$post); print "\n";
> > would be better
55 matches
Mail list logo
