I think we are saying much the same thing, but quibbling over terms :) I'd only note that there is a difference between "useful" and "usability".

I like the "raw parse trees" description of LISP. I'd never really thought of it that way, but it is a very accurate description from my less than comprehensive knowledge of the language. I assume that there is some mechanism for code re-use in LISP? Even if it is only something like include files? I also have no idea how you would read/write a file in LISP. I keep meaning to get around to installing a build of Scheme and playing.

P6 is definitely doing some things to orthoganise the language--consistant use of $, @, % comes to mind--but there are other areas where calls for orthoganality have been rejected. The most obvious example I can think of is length. I don't think that we are likely to see 

my $sizeOfArray = @array.length;

[download]
or 
my $sizeOfArray = length @array;

[download]
nor 
 
my $lenOfString = scalar @$scalar;

[download]
(though I personally still hanker for my $substring = $scalar[ 3 .. 7 ];).

So, whilst P6 is regularising the language in many places, it's being done not for sake of orthoganality itself, but to simply the use of the language. If it also makes it more elegant, thats great, but I don't think that is the primary drive for change.

Let me add, I think that Perl 5 can be elegant. Some of Abigail's recursive solutions are extremely elegant. Likewise some of your code. But as you've noted about some of my P5 in the past, it's also possible to produce stuff which is "Yuck!":)

As for C++. I've fairly recently discovered a language that I think achieves most of what C++ set out to achieve (except backwards compatibility), but that does it with much less complexity. It's still evolving, and I haven't had opportunity to make a great deal of use of it in larger programs yet, but the simplicity of its objects, the automatic memory management, built-in associative arrays endear me to it strongly.

The fact that I can still get down and dirty with the machine as with C, but have a few more HLL features to simplify things, plus the compiled-to-native performance make it really interesting to me.

Examine what is said, not who speaks.
"Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
"Think for yourself!" - Abigail

In reply to Re: Re^4: Perl6 syntax being too much complex? How we will teach and read that?! by BrowserUk
in thread Perl6 syntax being too much complex? How we will teach and read that?! by gmpassos

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.