Re: What would you change?

BrowserUk,
I would change a lot of things.

I would get rid of all the overloading of functions (dual purpose select, dual purpose angle brackets, etc)
I am still not sure I like the extreme DWIM of shift with two different default variables depending on where it is used
I would throw out all the junk (study, reset, formats, etc)
I would get rid of the things today that have been usurped such as 2 arg open and bare word file handles
If I were way smart - I would fix the whole threads problem and add syntax to allow certain auto-parallelization of things
If I were way smart - I would add an optional type system removing the dynamic nature (magic, number/string, etc) away from certain variables allowing the speed up at runtime
If I were way smart - I would take experimental features like sub attributes and prototypes and make them work and be useful
If I were way smart - I would completely overhaul the OO system
If I were way smart - I would find a way of reducing the sub calling overhead (perhaps by providing an optional syntax allowing the author to give the compiler optimization hints)
I would enable strictures, warnings, and tainting by default
I would make it such that dereferencing in all situations were pretty

The list goes on and on. On the other hand, I am quite certain that the changes I would make would result in a language that would suit me and likely not many others. I think this is more than just a matter of "take the bad with the good". I think that there is very little that almost everyone can agree should be changed (removed, added, augmented, modified, etc). I can also say with absolute certainty that the things that I would want to change today are not the same things I would have said 3 years ago which wouldn't have been the same things I would have said 6 years ago.

Cheers - L~R

Comment on Re: What would you change?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: What would you change? by Tux (Canon) on May 19, 2008 at 17:09 UTC
funny list :) I would want to keep `format`, but make it work, and make it actually work, also on lexical file handles, nestable, extendable, versatile etc etc. There are a few useful modules on CPAN already, but none of them actually makes it easy to convert from the good ol' `format` to what the modules offer. They all have their merrits. Let's bundle and make it useful! I'd throw out threads. Completely. I'd make auto-conversion from 32bit ints to 64bit ints to bignum and vv more native, so you never loose significance on integers I would remove modules from CORE that do not belong in CORE, such as CGI and Text::SoundEx I'd like the TIE system to be more transparant, and work on all data types (currently Tie::Handle is broke, and there is no Tie::Format. Imagine the fun you could have with the latter Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: What would you change?
by Tux (Canon) on May 19, 2008 at 17:09 UTC

funny list :)

I would want to keep format, but make it work, and make it actually work, also on lexical file handles, nestable, extendable, versatile etc etc. There are a few useful modules on CPAN already, but none of them actually makes it easy to convert from the good ol' format to what the modules offer. They all have their merrits. Let's bundle and make it useful!

I'd throw out threads. Completely.

I'd make auto-conversion from 32bit ints to 64bit ints to bignum and vv more native, so you never loose significance on integers

I would remove modules from CORE that do not belong in CORE, such as CGI and Text::SoundEx

I'd like the TIE system to be more transparant, and work on all data types (currently Tie::Handle is broke, and there is no Tie::Format. Imagine the fun you could have with the latter

Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]