Also, speaking of hypotheticals and "would-be Perl users somewhere down the line" is meaningless, as I tried to point out somewhere in this jumble of a thread. -- mattg
I think I can safely bet that there will be more users of Perl in the near future, especially around the advent of Perl 6. I would not bet any money on the death of object-oriented programming, and in a related issue, the death of the period for object-to-method interaction1.
I think the "hypothetical" issue of Perl users from other languages is not hypothetical at all. It happens all the time, and there's no reason to expect it to not happen later.
I've already said that I don't think Perl is right in using the arrow -- there are arguments why it is good (such as "it shows the object going to the method") -- but there is a bigger argument as to why Perl never used the dot instead. Now Perl is changing so that it can be used. Why is this happening? It certainly isn't Larry having an alcohol-induced vision of grandeur; it is Larry realizing that Perl is being different, and only because it had to be, and that by making a change here and there, we can offer something that many programmers are already familiar with. Instead of "switching gears" entirely when using Perl, they can just solve the problem differently, or solve a different problem.
I think Perl is making a good change, for reasons I've stated many times. If you don't feel my conclusion is valid, then that is your perogative. I feel I've shown enough evidence (non-hypothetical evidence from experience, even) to validate my opinion. My opinion.
_____________________________________________________
Jeff[japhy]Pinyan:
Perl,
regex,
and perl
hacker.
s++=END;++y(;-P)}y js++=;shajsj<++y(p-q)}?print:??;
In reply to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re (9): Perl6 headaches?
by japhy
in thread Perl6 headaches?
by mattg
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |