Re^8: What will scientific computing in Perl 6 look like?

Of all the Perl programs written, how many will use Gaussian numbers?

Or look at it another way. How many Perl programs will make use of all that "long list of numeric types that mathematicians have"?

The vast majority of Perl programs will use nothing more than the basics, and the few that do will each probably only use one or two of those exotics. So long as whatever packages are used to provide the required conversions between the exotic types they implement and one of the built in basic types, where applicable, everyone is happy.

Conclusion: The theoretical problem of a combinatorial explosion of type conversions never arises.

Comment on Re^8: What will scientific computing in Perl 6 look like?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^9: What will scientific computing in Perl 6 look like? by tilly (Archbishop) on Jul 16, 2008 at 16:15 UTC
There is a chicken and an egg problem here. It is difficult to write a good package in Perl to manipulate various numerical types. Nobody has written such a package in Perl. You don't see people trying to use such a package. These all feed back on each other. If we had a good package for manipulating different numerical types in Perl, who can say who would come out of the woodwork to use it? If it was easy to write it, do you think that someone would have put it on CPAN? Have you seen how many Math:: modules there are? Many for things that you'd never expect to see people use in Perl?	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^9: What will scientific computing in Perl 6 look like?
by tilly (Archbishop) on Jul 16, 2008 at 16:15 UTC

If we had a good package for manipulating different numerical types in Perl, who can say who would come out of the woodwork to use it? If it was easy to write it, do you think that someone would have put it on CPAN? Have you seen how many Math:: modules there are? Many for things that you'd never expect to see people use in Perl?

[reply]