On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Michael Zedeler
wrote:
> ...and unpredictable performance is a cost you're willing to pay?
I don't write performance-critical applications, but even if I did, why
would I prefer getting the wrong answer faster?
Eirik
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Michael Zedeler
wrote:
> I'm not saying that there isn't any alternative to the way other languages
> implements floats, but Rats in particular seems to require a
> nondeterministic algorithm in order to be of practical use.
>
Rats means never having to worry a
Yes, unpredictable performance is a price I'm willing to pay. I'm using a
dynamic language after all.
If you aren't willing to pay it, just use typed variables. Or even native
types, like num or int. Choose your own number representation -- there's
more than one way to do it.
The design philos
...and unpredictable performance is a cost you're willing to pay?
M.
The Sidhekin wrote
>On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Michael Zedeler wrote:
>
>I'm not saying that there isn't any alternative to the way other languages
>implements floats, but Rats in particular seems to require
I really understand your point. If there was several competing OOP modules,
things *could* get really complicated (in my opinion, it isn't the case for
perl 5, but it is worth discussing), but it doesn't seem as if anyone has put
any effort into defining what needs to be common and what doesn't.
Yes. It looks nice that Perl 6 recognizes zero in this way, but the consequence
is that each implementation of Perl 6 has to run a gcd algorithm every now and
then.
I'd be very surprised if the computational complexity of any useful (even
approximate) gcd algorithm doesn't scale with the with
The goal is to avoid everyone using a different not fully compatible
version of everything. Like in perl 5 with the bunch of different ways to
do objects, signatures etc.
Pilling good things on top of each others rather than aiming for an elegant
design is what I consider the core idea of Perl.
Bei
I like that I can start with a fairly simple subset of Perl 6 but pick up more
as I go along, if it’s needed.
chris
On Jun 16, 2015, at 9:45 AM, Paweł Murias
mailto:pawelmur...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I think Perl 6 tries to include too much rather than too little.
It will be possible to just use a
* Michael Zedeler [2015-06-16 18:55]:
> For instance, why have Complex and Rat numbers in the core? If you're
> not working in a very specialized field (which probably *isn't*
> numerical computation), those datatypes are just esoteric constructs
> that you'll never use.
https://www.youtube.com/w
* Michael Zedeler [2015-06-16 13:10]:
> On 06/16/15 12:24, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
>> * Michael Zedeler [2015-06-16 11:35]:
>>> This is working exactly as specified in the synopsis, but does Perl
>>> 6 NEED anything like this? Just because something is possible
>>> doesn't make it an automatic
This is another of my points: when presented with all the features in Perl 6 -
what is then essential?
The essential features - besides being presented up front and center to newbies
- are also good candidates for what should go into the core.
For instance, why have Complex and Rat numbers in t
Subsets will be absolutely essential, if it is to be possible to learn
it with a reasonable amount of time and effort.
On 6/16/15, Paweł Murias wrote:
> I think Perl 6 tries to include too much rather than too little.
> It will be possible to just use a subset
>
> On 16 June 2015 at 10:32, Michae
I think Perl 6 tries to include too much rather than too little.
It will be possible to just use a subset
On 16 June 2015 at 10:32, Michael Zedeler wrote:
> On 06/12/15 15:54, Parrot Raiser wrote:
>
>> Has somebody been following the discussions on types?
>> http://xkcd.org/1537/ :-)*
>>
> Perl6
Hi Aristotle.
On 06/16/15 12:24, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Michael Zedeler [2015-06-16 11:35]:
This is working exactly as specified in the synopsis, but does Perl
6 NEED anything like this? Just because something is possible doesn't
make it an automatic requirement!
Well someone thought th
Aristotle Pagaltzis writes:
> Just because you can’t think of the use of a feature doesn’t mean
> there isn’t one.
No, though it possibly means the docs could do with a clearer example
which demonstrates its use in a situation where it makes sense to use
it.
Smylers
--
http://twitter.com/Smyler
* Michael Zedeler [2015-06-16 11:35]:
> This is working exactly as specified in the synopsis, but does Perl
> 6 NEED anything like this? Just because something is possible doesn't
> make it an automatic requirement!
Well someone thought they needed it in Perl 5 so they wrote NEXT which
provides E
Hi.
I know that Perl 6 has a lot of "live and let live" to it, but is it
possible somehow to remove features as well?
The latest comment about language design by Parrot Raiser (great name!)
had me reflect on why I don't use perl any longer, and here is one of
the reasons:
class Person {
On 06/12/15 15:54, Parrot Raiser wrote:
Has somebody been following the discussions on types? http://xkcd.org/1537/ :-)*
Perl6 has something similar to example 9.
Ranges, hyper-operators as well as the "invocation" operators .+ and .*
doesn't make any sense to me. Those constructs made me stop
18 matches
Mail list logo
