|
in reply to Modern::Perl
A Modern namespace is bad, for aside from the problem you mention, it implies the standard is somehow antiquated. This strikes me as a somewhat defensive reaction (marketing ploy?) to the common misconception that Perl is aging, that 6.0 is vaporware and Perl 5 is somehow inferior to alternatives. Those same monkeys will point and say "look, how cute, Perl is trying to be Modern, har har!" Stick with something less ambiguous and more to the point, I say. |
Re^2: Modern::Perl
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Jan 29, 2009 at 07:40 UTC
|
A Modern namespace is bad, for aside from the problem you mention, it implies the standard is somehow antiquated.
If you only get implication from that, I haven't said it strongly enough. There is no good reason that the best features of the newest Perl 5 releases are only available to people who know the secret magic incantations to enable them.
This strikes me as a somewhat defensive reaction (marketing ploy?)....
It's not. It's an attempt to be somewhat less hostile to novices by encouraging them to develop good habits to write more maintainable Perl.
Stick with something less ambiguous and more to the point, I say.
The least ambiguous option I devised was Make::Default::Perl::Not::Suck, and that has its own flaws -- not in the least that it brings to mind dependency graph resolution engines.
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
Perhaps a more emblematic name? TheSchwartz is already taken, so how about TheForce ?
Or to borrow an idea from Class::DBI::Sweet, call it Perl::Sweet (Making sweet things sweeter).
| [reply] |
|
|
IMO the best features of modern Perl are the things that are enabled by default without any special incantations at all -- things like // and named captures, things that actually make it easier to write readable code. In contrast, all say does is save a little typing. Explicit line breaks were never a maintenance problem like defined $8 ? $8 : defined $6 ? $6 : 1.
(I guess given/when might turn out to be totally awesome, but I'm one of those people who never felt the lack of a switch statement in the first place, so I've not got round to trying them yet.)
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
Re^2: Modern::Perl
by DrHyde (Prior) on Jan 29, 2009 at 11:17 UTC
|
Perl 6 is vapourware. It doesn't exist yet. It's been in development for 8 years. Looks pretty vapourous to me. | [reply] |
|
|
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
Yes, you can write real perl 6 code, using a subset of perl 6 because perl 6 isn't finished yet, and therefore doesn't really exist. You can also write real perl 6 code using perl 5, because at least some perl 5 code will run unchanged in perl 6.
Mind you, I didn't know that Rakudo had got that far, so thanks for pointing it out.
update: building rakudo fails because 1GB of memory apparently isn't enough.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
