On 2010-01-29, Neil Hodgson wrote:
> Looks to me like the problem with Perl 6 was that it was too
> ambitious, wanting to fix all perceived problems with the
> language.
I thought Python was Perl with all the perceived problems fixed.
--
Grant
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytho
Looks to me like the problem with Perl 6 was that it was too
ambitious, wanting to fix all perceived problems with the language.
Python 3 is much more limited in scope: at its core its Python with
Unicode fixed and old junk removed.
Neil
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-lis
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano <
st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:21:05 -0800, Tim Roberts wrote:
>
>> Perl 6, on the other hand, is still fantasyware a decade after its
>> announcement. It is, for the most part, THE canonical example of the
>
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:21:05 -0800, Tim Roberts wrote:
>
>> Perl 6, on the other hand, is still fantasyware a decade after its
>> announcement. It is, for the most part, THE canonical example of the
>> wrong way to conduct a development e
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:21:05 -0800, Tim Roberts wrote:
> Perl 6, on the other hand, is still fantasyware a decade after its
> announcement. It is, for the most part, THE canonical example of the
> wrong way to conduct a development effort.
Out of curiosity, and completely off-topic, why has Perl
