Re^3: Perl 6 critique is a good thing

Terminology. Suppose one language requires an open desk reference and a web page open to the standard library. That's Java. Suppose another is easily learned and remembered. That's Perl 5. Now suppose we add 50 operators to Perl 5... just like the File test operators, that's something else to remember.

Having only 3 major data types IS pretty minimalist, maybe not uber-minimalist, but that's a good thing.

I think I'll like writing perl6 more then I liked writing perl5 (and I like writing perl5 a lot).

Oh yeah, I totally agree here. Depends who wins the Perl5/Ruby thing, probably, but I know I'll like it better. Can't say that makes it wrong to ask questions about how it could be simpler though.

Complex tools are a good thing. Advanced concepts in the core are an awesome thing. Innovation is a good thing. However, keeping the syntax clean and straightforward, and ... yes .. minimialist while adding features is important to me. I don't want another "open desk reference" kind of language.

Comment on Re^3: Perl 6 critique is a good thing

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Perl 6 critique is a good thing by hardburn (Abbot) on Oct 18, 2004 at 21:19 UTC
Can you remember: where `split()` in void context puts the results? what `$\| = 2; print $\|;` will output? what weak references are, and why you might need them? how to use formats? what all of the default punctuation variables do? These are just things I thought of off the top of my head. I know the answers to these (except the last two), but I bet another very experianced Perl coder would have to look it up (and some of this stuff is in very obscure places). They'd come up with a completely different list that would stump me. In other words, we would each know a some details that the other doesn't. (Unless, that is, your name is Abigail. He can probably beat Larry.) Neither of us would a truely complete understanding of the language. We'd just know a useful subset which has been grown over time by our individual experiances with the language. In their orginal forms, C and LISP are minimalist languages (I find LISP surprisingly so). If they display complex behavior, it's because they use combinational explosion to produce it (i.e., combining individual components on a massive scale). Perl does do combinational explosion, but it gets a lot of power by refining the details of individual components. "There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Perl 6 critique is a good thing
by hardburn (Abbot) on Oct 18, 2004 at 21:19 UTC

Can you remember:

where split() in void context puts the results?
what $| = 2; print $|; will output?
what weak references are, and why you might need them?
how to use formats?
what all of the default punctuation variables do?

These are just things I thought of off the top of my head. I know the answers to these (except the last two), but I bet another very experianced Perl coder would have to look it up (and some of this stuff is in very obscure places). They'd come up with a completely different list that would stump me. In other words, we would each know a some details that the other doesn't.

(Unless, that is, your name is Abigail. He can probably beat Larry.)

Neither of us would a truely complete understanding of the language. We'd just know a useful subset which has been grown over time by our individual experiances with the language.

In their orginal forms, C and LISP are minimalist languages (I find LISP surprisingly so). If they display complex behavior, it's because they use combinational explosion to produce it (i.e., combining individual components on a massive scale). Perl does do combinational explosion, but it gets a lot of power by refining the details of individual components.

"There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]