I don't if its the lack of communication skills that I'm unable to convey the message here.
Nobody can stop people from writing whatever(bad or good) programs they want to write. If the environment enables novices to that easily that will become more than sufficient grounds for bad PR. My point is that in order to do something like function signatures(Which by the way is nothing extra, and is just catching with other languages in Perl's class) if you have to import nearly 2 modules and for each every such equivalent you need to keep importing such modules. And after all that you are confused which modules to choose from CPAN. It becomes a bad manifestation of TIMTOWDI. Its freedom, but its far too much pain to assemble an environment from scratch. And even more bigger pain to maintain it. Its like those early linux systems, you could assemble them from scratch but that was the only reason most people didn't use it. Until a standard way of distribution came along where packaging and distribution was a lot more saner and better managed. Now it finds rapid adaption in enterprises and desktops. At the same time, other experiments on Kernel and other utils continue. This whole thing is about deciding on a proper distro.
Also I completely agree with your complexity argument.
It helps the language environment to have good set of defaults or at the least a good standard, Even if we don't agree on defaults. In post renaissance stage of Perl's era I think we ought to look at things that troubled us earlier and at least fix a part of that. Things like unmaintainable code can manifest with excessive use of bad modules. We don't want those night mares to haunt us back again.
In reply to Re^8: What is best for the future.
by Anonymous Monk
in thread What is best for the future.
by Anonymous Monk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |