But progress depends on the seesaw between the better-is-better approach and the worse-is-better approach. The first 14 years of Perl were mostly built on the worse-is-better approach, and eventually you run into the inevitable fact that a large enough pile of worse things ends up stinking.
I'm very intrigued by your post. Can you give an example of "worse-is-better" in the design of Perl before Perl 6?
Update: Clarified the wording.
the lowliest monk
In reply to Re^3: Tim O'Reilly on Perl
by tlm
in thread Tim O'Reilly on Perl
by fauria
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |