What's wrong with finishing the Perl 5 compiler? Ten years ago, there was "undump()", then there was "perlcc", and now both are abandoned.
Go for it. I don't get this idea you seem to have that there's some organizational level above developers/volunteers, either in perl5 or perl6. The compiler stuff was a neat idea; several people put in the initial work. The parts people willing to put in the work found most useful have been maintained and enhanced as time goes by (B, B::Deparse, B::Concise, B::Xref, etc.). Other parts have atrophied in absence of someone interested enough to do the work. So who are you talking to?
| [reply] |
What's wrong with making perltidy actually robust enought that we know that nothing has changed.
If you mean either because the file hasn't changed since last it was tidied and perltidy doesn't need to do anything, or because there has been an error and it shouldn't overwrite your original file, then maybe this bit of shell script might prove helpful:
#!/bin/bash
PERLTIDY=/usr/bin/perltidy
PERLTIDYOPTIONS=' -l 123 '
TOUCH=/bin/touch
DIFF=/usr/bin/diff
CP=/bin/cp
CPOPTIONS=' -v '
WC=/usr/bin/wc
if [ $# -gt 0 ]
then
echo Command line: $0 $@
for file in $@
do
if [ ! -e $file.tdy ]
then
TOUCH $file.tdy
fi
if [ `$DIFF -q $file $file.tdy | $WC -l` -gt 0 ]
then
$PERLTIDY $PERLTIDYOPTIONS $file
if [ -e $file.ERR ]
then
echo Error detected-not replacing
else
if [ `$DIFF -q $file $file.tdy | $WC -l` -gt 0 ]
then
$CP $CPOPTIONS $file.tdy $file
else
echo Skipping replacement of $file - tidied file matches ori
+ginal
fi
fi
else
echo Skipping $file - perltidy on file not necessary
fi
done
else
echo Usage: $0 filename [filename2]
fi
Hope that helps. | [reply]
[d/l] |
I can't possibly do a thing to ruin perl for you or to prevent you from getting your job done. How does anything I do stop you from doing anything? Just as you can't stop me from doing things I think are important, neither can I stop you. You lose exactly nothing when I upload a module to CPAN. You gain something when you use something I've worked on to improve your own code. Recently I wrote some more tests for B and made B::Lint pluggable. Tell me about how this has made you suffer. Please.
| [reply] |
The “P” in Perl stands for “practical”, not “fun”, nor “interesting”, nor “pointless”.
No, it stands for Pathological.
Now go away, troll.
Makeshifts last the longest.
| [reply] |
Is there a conspiracy to prevent Perl 5 from being made simple and robust?
Note: sorry for replying so late, but I noticed this thread only now.
Well, no conspiracy, but Perl has never been designed, thought, claimed or intended to be simple at all. I love simplicity, and I admire it in other languages. But it's not part of Perl, period. And for some reason I love Perl too. As far as robustness is concerned, I don't know: probably it has never been considered a main design objective, i.e. if compared to other charachteristics, but it has certainly been taken into account to some extent as well. Indeed the language has been designed to be practical and magic. Yet it evolved into something robust enough to be used reliably enough in production, and business, and all those other environments and situations you seem to boast about. Perl 6 is... err... well... a dream of bringing all this to another level: made even more practical, more magic, but also consistent at the same time. Well, Perl 5 happens to be a dream come true. I don't see anything that could possibly prevent Perl 6 from being another one, and I feel like giving it a chance: what I see currently happening seems to support my hope! I find your rants many orders of magnitude more annoying than the alleged "hype".
Me too. If it's any comfort, just think of the design of Perl 6 as
a genetic algorithm running on a set of distributed wetware CPUs.
We'll just keep mutating our ideas till they prove themselves adaptive.
- Larry Wall in p6l, "Re: Adding linear interpolation to an array"
| [reply] |