in reply to perl 6

Having Perl 6000 won't change that attitude. The only thing that will change that attitude is a redefinition of what a "useful programming language" is.

Essentially, what you're running into is snobbery, plain and simple. Java wasn't considered a "real programming language" by the C/C++ people for years. Yet, here it is. C++ wasn't considered to be its own language when it first came out, either. Bjorne Strousoup didn't even conceive of it as a different language. It was more an extension than anything else. (For those wondering, it would be similar to considering Perl 5.x with TheDamian's extensions like Switch to be a "different language".)

What I feel, primarily, is that you do what you do. If you do object-oriented applications development (like I do) and you use Perl, then Perl is an OO-apps development language. If you use it for easing administration scripting headaches, then it's a admin scripting language. :-)

------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

Don't go borrowing trouble. For programmers, this means Worry only about what you need to implement.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: perl 6
by derby (Abbot) on Mar 13, 2002 at 15:10 UTC
    dragonchild

    I couldn't agree with you more but it even goes back further than that:

    machine language people mocked assemblers
    assemblers mocked C
    C mocked shell scripters (and everyone else)
    shell scripters derided perl
    perl derides ...

    At one time it was real easy to make a distinction between compiled languages and interpreted ones. And there was a basis in fact for that - compiled (to native machine code) always run faster. Now that being said, there's been great leaps with bytecode style languages (Java, and to some extent perl). Having a simple script breakdown to bytecode which can then be run by some type of virtual machine is having it's fifteen minutes. That's what Java is, that's what .Net is, that's almost what perl5 is and is what perl6 is going to be.

    I just hope whatever management I'm under will let me pick the right tool for the job. Whether thats a compiled langauge, a true interpreted language, or a bytecode language. I have faith in myself on when to use which - gratefully so does my current management and hopefully so will future ones.

    -derby

[reply]
      perl derides...
      ...a lot of unnecessary work? :)

      "As information travels faster in the modern age, as our days are crawling by so slowly." -- DCFC

[reply]
[reply]

        Java knows how to emit and load byte code. Perl doesn't. Perl doesn't quite use "byte code". Perl compiles code to a parse tree that is stored in memory. There have been attempts to serialize this opcode tree so that it can be saved and then later loaded. But the opcode tree was not designed around this idea and the attempts have so far mostly failed (B::Bytecode says "BUGS: Plenty. Current status: experimental.").

                - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")
[reply]
      HA HA HA Yeah, you wrote this years ago and I just came across it now...
[reply]

In Section Meditations