It's a bit unfortunate that the article points at the 2002 version of the Synopsis as the most recent update, but that's a minor problem. The funniest part that the article misses is the fact that the design of Perl 6 rules was not in the least based on P::RD. I'd never looked at or used P::RD when I wrote the Apocalypse. It was just convergent evolution. | [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
Sad. Now that the article is on slashdot, more people will be confused.
| [reply] |
Oh, it's not that sad in a Gaborean sense. It's not a bad article overall--I was just picking nits. As for slashdot, I don't really mind if Python and Ruby programmers stay confused for a few more months. :-)
| [reply]
[d/l] |
Wow. An IBM article on Perl that actually is useful! Maybe this is the start of an excellent trend. Now, if you had only registered for an account on here, we could have given you the credit you deserve...
A few questions:
- Have you offered to cross-post this to http://www.perl.com?
- While Conway and Palmer reviewed your article, why didn't you put somewhere that this is still potentially hypothetical syntax?
Being right, does not endow the right to be rude; politeness costs nothing.
Being unknowing, is not the same as being stupid.
Expressing a contrary opinion, whether to the individual or the group, is more often a sign of deeper thought than of cantankerous belligerence.
Do not mistake your goals as the only goals; your opinion as the only opinion; your confidence as correctness. Saying you know better is not the same as explaining you know better.
| [reply] |
