Re: Perl koan #2300 (Perl in the browser)

"Whether any existing language could be used, instead of inventing a new one, was also not something I decided. The diktat from upper engineering management was that the language must “look like Java”. That ruled out Perl, Python, and Tcl, along with Scheme. Later, in 1996, John Ousterhout came by to pitch Tk and lament the missed opportunity for Tcl." (Brendan Eich)

This sounds like it was taken into consideration. Fortunately he they didn't choose Scheme.

I remember also that i read somewhere years ago that the so called "upper engineering management" rejected Perl because they considered it as "too difficult".

Regards, Karl

«The Crux of the Biscuit is the Apostrophe»

Comment on Re: Perl koan #2300 (Perl in the browser)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Perl koan #2300 (Perl in the browser) by Jenda (Abbot) on Apr 19, 2015 at 00:50 UTC
Java being as ugly as it is we should still be grateful it was not supposed to look like Basic. Besides ... JavaScript doesn't share much with Java anyway. Basically only the things Java inherited from C. Jenda Enoch was right! Enjoy the last years of Rome.	[reply]
Re^2: Perl koan #2300 (Perl in the browser) by rje (Deacon) on Apr 20, 2015 at 16:56 UTC
I think in 1996 Perl WAS too difficult -- for the browser to embed. Back in the day, it was heavy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but today, it's durn near svelte. Or, at least, in the same general footprint as all scripting languages. Interpreters are light as a feather, due to support for video driving all the bloat in today's software I suppose. Heck, there's no reason EVERY scripting language can't be plugged into browsers, all at the same time, into one blob.	[reply]