Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
Lars Eighner
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
Countdown: 264 days to go.
bugbear
> Will perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
>
They'll be hellish backwards compatibility issues
if it isn't!
BugBear
Peter Scott
Backwards compatibility with what?
Are you thinking that Perl 6 is intended to be backwards compatible with
Perl 5? It isn't, and it won't be. The runtime will be able to use Perl
5 modules, but that's a different story.
--
Peter Scott
http://www.perlmedic.com/
http://www.perldebugged.com/
bugbear
> On Thu, 01 May 2008 12:00:32 +0100, bugbear wrote:
>
>> Lars Eighner wrote:
>>> Will perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
>>>
>> They'll be hellish backwards compatibility issues
>> if it isn't!
>
> Backwards compatibility with what?
>
> Are you thinking that Perl 6 is intended to be backwards compatible with
> Perl 5? It isn't, and it won't be.
Oh. That's a bit of a surprise.
BugBear
nolo contendere
I agree, although I see the benefits. It will slow adoption though.
xho...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 01 May 2008 12:00:32 +0100, bugbear wrote:
>
> > Lars Eighner wrote:
> >> Will perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
> >>
> >
> > They'll be hellish backwards compatibility issues
> > if it isn't!
>
> Backwards compatibility with what?
>
> Are you thinking that Perl 6 is intended to be backwards compatible with
> Perl 5? It isn't, and it won't be. The runtime will be able to use Perl
> 5 modules, but that's a different story.
What is the difference between that, and being backwards compatible?
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked
advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate
this fact.
Lars Eighner
and talented Peter Scott broadcast on comp.lang.perl.misc:
> On Thu, 01 May 2008 12:00:32 +0100, bugbear wrote:
>> Lars Eighner wrote:
>>> Will perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
>>>
>>
>> They'll be hellish backwards compatibility issues
>> if it isn't!
> Backwards compatibility with what?
> Are you thinking that Perl 6 is intended to be backwards compatible with
> Perl 5? It isn't, and it won't be. The runtime will be able to use Perl
> 5 modules, but that's a different story.
So will it still be usable as a procedure language?
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
Countdown: 263 days to go.
Lars Eighner
talented xho...@gmail.com broadcast on comp.lang.perl.misc:
> Peter Scott <Pe...@PSDT.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 May 2008 12:00:32 +0100, bugbear wrote:
>>
>> > Lars Eighner wrote:
>> >> Will perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
>> >>
>> >
>> > They'll be hellish backwards compatibility issues
>> > if it isn't!
>>
>> Backwards compatibility with what?
>>
>> Are you thinking that Perl 6 is intended to be backwards compatible with
>> Perl 5? It isn't, and it won't be. The runtime will be able to use Perl
>> 5 modules, but that's a different story.
> What is the difference between that, and being backwards compatible?
Backwards compatibility would imply that old scripts would still run (sort
of). Evidently what's being promised here is that (some?) libraries will
still sort of work.
It's not answering the question, which was whether it will still be possible
to use perl as a procedure language.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
Countdown: 263 days to go.
nolo contendere
> Will perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
>
What _exactly_ do you mean by 'procedure language'?
xho...@gmail.com
> On May 1, 1:12=A0am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
> > Will perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
> >
>
> What _exactly_ do you mean by 'procedure language'?
I think he means "Not object oriented"
Xho
nolo contendere
> nolo contendere <simon.c...@fmr.com> wrote:
> > On May 1, 1:12=A0am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
> > > Will perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
>
> > What _exactly_ do you mean by 'procedure language'?
>
> I think he means "Not object oriented"
But can't one author code either procedurally or OO in the same
language?
(This may not be the authority, but):
"The most popular programming languages usually have both OOP and
procedural aspects."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_programming#Comparison_with_object-oriented_programming
Perhaps the most popular language used for OOP is Java, but you can
write procedural code in Java if you wanted, correct? I was hoping
that the OP could list the exact criteria he was using for determining
the answer to his question.
xho...@gmail.com
> In our last episode, <20080501111811.498$r...@newsreader.com>, the lovely
> and talented xho...@gmail.com broadcast on comp.lang.perl.misc:
>
> > Peter Scott <Pe...@PSDT.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 01 May 2008 12:00:32 +0100, bugbear wrote:
> >>
> >> > Lars Eighner wrote:
> >> >> Will perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > They'll be hellish backwards compatibility issues
> >> > if it isn't!
> >>
> >> Backwards compatibility with what?
> >>
> >> Are you thinking that Perl 6 is intended to be backwards compatible
> >> with Perl 5? It isn't, and it won't be. The runtime will be able to
> >> use Perl 5 modules, but that's a different story.
>
> > What is the difference between that, and being backwards compatible?
>
> Backwards compatibility would imply that old scripts would still run
> (sort of). Evidently what's being promised here is that (some?)
> libraries will still sort of work.
I'm still not seeing the difference. It is trivially easy to
turn a script into a module. rename from .pl to .pm and add
an 1; to the end. Even the last step is optional if you don't mind
a spurious error message at the end of execution.
mv foo.pl foo.pm
perl -le 'use foo'
Xho
xho...@gmail.com
> > > > Will perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
> >
> > > What _exactly_ do you mean by 'procedure language'?
> >
> > I think he means "Not object oriented"
>
> But can't one author code either procedurally or OO in the same
> language?
>
> (This may not be the authority, but):
>
> "The most popular programming languages usually have both OOP and
> procedural aspects."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_programming#Comparison_with_objec
>
> Perhaps the most popular language used for OOP is Java, but you can
> write procedural code in Java if you wanted, correct?
Whenever I want to do a little procedural code in Java (for example, just
to test a simple construct, like you can do in Perl with the -e switch), it
seems I have to wrap it up in an annoying amount of pro forma OOP in order
to get to the meat of the matter. Maybe I'm overlooking a simpler way.
Charlton Wilbur
bb> Peter Scott wrote:
>> Are you thinking that Perl 6 is intended to be backwards
>> compatible with Perl 5? It isn't, and it won't be.
bb> Oh. That's a bit of a surprise.
It shouldn't be -- one of the initial decisions relating to Perl 6 was
that this was a chance to fix all of the problems resulting from the
decision to make Perl 5 as backwards-compatible as possible.
It seems to me that the Perl 4 to Perl 5 decision was, after more than
a decade of distance, mostly correct. I get the sense that the Perl 5
to Perl 6 decision triggered a massive case of second system syndrome,
which is why it's taking so long; but what I've seen backported to
Perl 5 makes me think it will be a great language when it finally gets
here. It just won't be Perl 5.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
Lars Eighner
<bb9e4723-a2d9-4517...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented nolo contendere broadcast on comp.lang.perl.misc:
> On May 1, 1:40 pm, xhos...@gmail.com wrote:
>> nolo contendere <simon.c...@fmr.com> wrote:
>> > On May 1, 1:12=A0am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>> > > Will perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
>>
>> > What _exactly_ do you mean by 'procedure language'?
>>
>> I think he means "Not object oriented"
> But can't one author code either procedurally or OO in the same
> language?
In some languages, yes (for example perl 5). In other, e.g. Java, not in any
practical sense.
> (This may not be the authority, but):
> "The most popular programming languages usually have both OOP and
> procedural aspects."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_programming#Comparison_with_object-oriented_programming
> Perhaps the most popular language used for OOP is Java, but you can
> write procedural code in Java if you wanted, correct?
Not really.
> I was hoping that the OP could list the exact criteria he was using for
> determining the answer to his question.
Can you write code without objects, object wrappers, etc. and use functions
and subroutines instead? Can you make function calls without object-like
notation (i.e. little arrows made of hyphens and inequality signs pointing
in counter-intuitive directions)? Are you bound to use some basic set of
objects which don't do what you want and you cannot edit? Will it be
incredibly slow and inefficient?
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
Countdown: 263 days to go.
szr
[...]
> Are you thinking that Perl 6 is intended to be backwards compatible
> with Perl 5? It isn't, and it won't be.
While Perl 6 has it's merits, this alone doesn't really inspire me to an
all out switch when it finally comes, and given how much code would be
broken, I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up having a poor adoption
rate for the first year or two because of this, as Perl 5.10 adds some
of the Perl 6-destined features (like given/when) and still promotes
backwards compatibility (and in a very intelligent and un-intrusive way)
and future releases are likely to only be better.
So given this, why would one, who have plenty of Perl code, feel
compelled to choose Perl 6 over Perl 5 and spend what could huge amounts
of time rewriting a lot of code?
--
szr
Uri Guttman
s> Peter Scott wrote:
s> [...]
>> Are you thinking that Perl 6 is intended to be backwards compatible
>> with Perl 5? It isn't, and it won't be.
s> While Perl 6 has it's merits, this alone doesn't really inspire me to an
s> all out switch when it finally comes, and given how much code would be
s> broken, I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up having a poor adoption
s> rate for the first year or two because of this, as Perl 5.10 adds some
s> of the Perl 6-destined features (like given/when) and still promotes
s> backwards compatibility (and in a very intelligent and un-intrusive way)
s> and future releases are likely to only be better.
s> So given this, why would one, who have plenty of Perl code, feel
s> compelled to choose Perl 6 over Perl 5 and spend what could huge amounts
s> of time rewriting a lot of code?
you should move this thread to the perl6 language list. but in any case
p6 will have a p5 compiler in it (or some way to do that). larry's
intent is that almost all p5 code could be compiled to run on the p6
backend and so allow p5 and p6 code to run in the same process. this is
better than backwards compatibility as it allows incremental migration
of p5 code to p6 (and this may include tools to do that
translation). the albatross of true backwards compatibility is what has
kept x86 and redmond so 'backwards' for decades. supporting easy and
clean migration to a new target is much smarter.
as for prodedural vs OO, p6 will allow both but OO will be much stronger
and such than p5's OO. look around for damian's slide show of p5 code vs
the equivilent p6 code. much of the basic stuff won't change or will
change little. there will still be scalars, arrays, hashes and
subs. subs will have a proper arg passing and handling mechanism but the
@_ style can be used in some way if desired. but the overall lang is so
much better in p6 and sections suchs as rules/grammars vs p5 regexes are
like comparing an orange grove to a crabapple. that change alone is
worth using p6. read about that on the perl.org pages and look for the
synopsis or other docs on p6 grammars.
uri
--
Uri Guttman ------ u...@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
--------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------
Sherman Pendley
> So given this, why would one, who have plenty of Perl code, feel
> compelled to choose Perl 6 over Perl 5 and spend what could huge amounts
> of time rewriting a lot of code?
Simple answer: If your Perl 5 code works, you shouldn't feel compelled to
rewrite it.
I remember the 4->5 switch. I had scripts that began with '#!/usr/bin/perl4'
for *years* after Perl 5 had become the New Hotness. I wrote all my new work
in Perl 5, but I didn't bother immediately updating everything in sight.
As time passed and I needed to maintain Perl 4 scripts for other reasons, I
updated them to Perl 5 at the same time, if doing so made sense in light of
the other maintenance. That is, doing so would *not* make sense if the other
task were pasting in this year's updated copyright comment. :-)
sherm--
--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Jim Cochrane
It sounds to me like one could think of perl 6 as a different language
(which happens to have a very similar name) than perl 5, but with features
(described above) for compatibility with this other language (perl 5).
So perhaps it's helpful to think of p6 as a different language altogether,
designed in such a way as to be easily learnable by perl 5 programmers,
but whose design is better (especially in making it easier to use OO
features) than perl 5. In other words, switching to p6 would be a
language change (not a language/compiler/version upgrade) - similar to
switching from C++ to Java, although the difference would not be as large.
That's how I'm currently thinking of it, anyway.
Why would people want to make that change? Well, perhaps for similar
reasons that many people/organizations switched from C++ to Java?
(E.g., better productivity, maintainability, etc.)
--
Ben Bullock
> the albatross of true backwards compatibility is what has
> kept x86 and redmond so 'backwards' for decades.
But backwards-compatibility-albatross-less Perl 6 has been under
development for eight years, which is getting on for one decade.
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented Jim Cochrane broadcast on comp.lang.perl.misc:
> Why would people want to make that change? Well, perhaps for similar
> reasons that many people/organizations switched from C++ to Java?
> (E.g., better productivity, maintainability, etc.)
I'm not sure I have a choice. Development of my OS goes at a fearsome pace,
and if I wait too long, I will end up with an orphaned system. Soon or
later the OS will move to Perl 6. And sooner or later I will have to
upgrade to maintain the ability to install applications (easily). Meanwhile
I have tons of stuff in Perl (much of it original to avoid OO modules).
If Perl 6 will lock me in to OO, then I need to start rewriting the perl in
shell scripts (sed, awk, etc.) now.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
Countdown: 263 days to go.
Dr.Ruud
> Jim Cochrane:
>> Why would people want to make that change? Well, perhaps for similar
>> reasons that many people/organizations switched from C++ to Java?
>> (E.g., better productivity, maintainability, etc.)
>
> I'm not sure I have a choice. Development of my OS goes at a
> fearsome pace, and if I wait too long, I will end up with an orphaned
> system. Soon or later the OS will move to Perl 6. And sooner or
> later I will have to upgrade to maintain the ability to install
> applications (easily). Meanwhile I have tons of stuff in Perl (much
> of it original to avoid OO modules).
> If Perl 6 will lock me in to OO, then I need to start rewriting the
> perl in shell scripts (sed, awk, etc.) now.
No problem, C coexists to C++ as Perl 5 will coexist to Perl 6.
Perl 6 is a different language, Onion was coined as a better name for
it.
--
Affijn, Ruud
"Gewoon is een tijger."
Peter Scott
> Perl 6 is a different language, Onion was coined as a better name for
> it.
Actually, 'Rakudo' is the accepted alternate moniker (referring to Perl 6
running on Parrot).
nolo contendere
> lovely and talented nolo contendere broadcast on comp.lang.perl.misc:
>
> > On May 1, 1:40 pm, xhos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> nolo contendere <simon.c...@fmr.com> wrote:
> >> > On May 1, 1:12=A0am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
> >> > > Will perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
>
> >> > What _exactly_ do you mean by 'procedure language'?
>
> >> I think he means "Not object oriented"
> > But can't one author code either procedurally or OO in the same
> > language?
>
> In some languages, yes (for example perl 5). In other, e.g. Java, not in any
> practical sense.
>
> > (This may not be the authority, but):
> > "The most popular programming languages usually have both OOP and
> > procedural aspects."
> > Perhaps the most popular language used for OOP is Java, but you can
> > write procedural code in Java if you wanted, correct?
>
> Not really.
>
> > I was hoping that the OP could list the exact criteria he was using for
> > determining the answer to his question.
>
> Can you write code without objects, object wrappers, etc. and use functions
> and subroutines instead? Can you make function calls without object-like
> notation (i.e. little arrows made of hyphens and inequality signs pointing
> in counter-intuitive directions)? Are you bound to use some basic set of
> objects which don't do what you want and you cannot edit? Will it be
> incredibly slow and inefficient?
>
Consider Python--an OO Language ("Python is a dynamic object-oriented
programming language" from http://www.python.org/), everything is an
object. But, it is considered a procedural language as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_programming#Procedural_programming_languages
Python is roughly the same speed as Perl.
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=perl&lang2=python
Procedural programming is more of a style than a stricture of the
language.
Who really cares about the syntactic difference between a function
call and a method invocation? They amount to the same thing.
Uri Guttman
BB> Uri Guttman <u...@stemsystems.com> wrote:
>> the albatross of true backwards compatibility is what has
>> kept x86 and redmond so 'backwards' for decades.
BB> But backwards-compatibility-albatross-less Perl 6 has been under
BB> development for eight years, which is getting on for one decade.
if any of you would actually follow the perl6 lists you would understand
why it is slow going. also there is no corporate or financial backing
and it is all volunteer work. it is a complex but very powerful lang and
its design (and implementation which is separate from parrot) is not a
trival thing. i prefer to let it gestate at its own rate and be
patient. no one expects it out by christmas and no one claims otherwise.
Ben Bullock
>>>>>> "BB" == Ben Bullock <benkasmi...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> BB> Uri Guttman <u...@stemsystems.com> wrote:
> >> the albatross of true backwards compatibility is what has kept x86
> >> and redmond so 'backwards' for decades.
>
> BB> But backwards-compatibility-albatross-less Perl 6 has been under
> BB> development for eight years, which is getting on for one decade.
>
> if any of you would actually follow the perl6 lists you would understand
> why it is slow going.
It would be nice to have some kind of information from the front line,
without having to trawl through endless technical complexities on mailing
list archives. If nobody has enough of an overall grasp of its progress
that they can summarize it, that in itself is rather worrying. Also the
fact that you adopt an aggressive tone when asked about progress tends to
indicate that something is going wrong.
> also there is no corporate or financial backing
> and it is all volunteer work.
Just like the Linux kernel, Apache web server, Perl 5, Gnome, Gimp,
Inkscape, Pan newsreader, GNU Emacs, etc., just to mention a few things
to hand. As far as I know, none of these things have had corporate or
financial backing either. That argument seems like a red herring.
> it is a complex but very powerful lang and
> its design (and implementation which is separate from parrot) is not a
> trival thing.
This kind of talking reminds me very much of the comments around the GNU
Hurd kernel project ten years ago.
> i prefer to let it gestate at its own rate and be patient.
> no one expects it out by christmas and no one claims otherwise.
A lot of the web pages on Perl 6 date from four or more years ago, and
yet their tone is "Perl 6 is going to ...". The implication is that Perl
6 is something we can expect to see soon, and yet those pages are fairly
old. If those people thought Perl 6 would be ready soon, and it wasn't,
I'm curious to know what happened.
Uri Guttman
BB> On Fri, 02 May 2008 15:22:51 +0000, Uri Guttman wrote:
>>>>>>> "BB" == Ben Bullock <benkasmi...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
BB> Uri Guttman <u...@stemsystems.com> wrote:
>> >> the albatross of true backwards compatibility is what has kept x86
>> >> and redmond so 'backwards' for decades.
>>
BB> But backwards-compatibility-albatross-less Perl 6 has been under
BB> development for eight years, which is getting on for one decade.
>>
>> if any of you would actually follow the perl6 lists you would understand
>> why it is slow going.
BB> It would be nice to have some kind of information from the front line,
BB> without having to trawl through endless technical complexities on mailing
BB> list archives. If nobody has enough of an overall grasp of its progress
BB> that they can summarize it, that in itself is rather worrying. Also the
BB> fact that you adopt an aggressive tone when asked about progress tends to
BB> indicate that something is going wrong.
>> also there is no corporate or financial backing
>> and it is all volunteer work.
BB> Just like the Linux kernel, Apache web server, Perl 5, Gnome, Gimp,
BB> Inkscape, Pan newsreader, GNU Emacs, etc., just to mention a few things
BB> to hand. As far as I know, none of these things have had corporate or
BB> financial backing either. That argument seems like a red herring.
the linux kernel has tons of commercial support from many companies such
as ibm and red hat. the apache foundation gets lots of corporate
money. many gnu projects have commercial backing (gcc among
others). perl5 has some financial support but it hasn't had much large
corporate due to the lack of a proper foundation (which was only started
recently). so please get your facts straight. many other open source
projects have a fair amount of donated money and labor. there is some
financial support for perl6 via TPF and microgrants. in fact the mozilla
foundation (another project with plenty of corporate support) is one of
the sponsors of perl6 development ( see
http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6/index.cgi?perl_6_people)
>> it is a complex but very powerful lang and
>> its design (and implementation which is separate from parrot) is not a
>> trival thing.
BB> This kind of talking reminds me very much of the comments around the GNU
BB> Hurd kernel project ten years ago.
which never got near the current level of perl6/parrot in terms of
reality and release. parrot is released monthly with notable
progress. perl6 has several compiler front ends and back ends to play with.
>> i prefer to let it gestate at its own rate and be patient.
>> no one expects it out by christmas and no one claims otherwise.
BB> A lot of the web pages on Perl 6 date from four or more years ago,
BB> and yet their tone is "Perl 6 is going to ...". The implication is
BB> that Perl 6 is something we can expect to see soon, and yet those
BB> pages are fairly old. If those people thought Perl 6 would be
BB> ready soon, and it wasn't, I'm curious to know what happened.
so join the perl6 lang list and ask.
the official wiki which is much more recent and is generally active is at:
http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6/index.cgi
plenty to read there. no need to clutter up this group with perl6 talk.
Uri Guttman
BB> It would be nice to have some kind of information from the front
BB> line, without having to trawl through endless technical
BB> complexities on mailing list archives. If nobody has enough of an
BB> overall grasp of its progress that they can summarize it, that in
BB> itself is rather worrying. Also the fact that you adopt an
BB> aggressive tone when asked about progress tends to indicate that
BB> something is going wrong.
BB> This kind of talking reminds me very much of the comments around
BB> the GNU Hurd kernel project ten years ago.
in another post i pointed you to the perl6 wiki. and its FUD FAQ page
will answer most of your negative questions:
http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6/index.cgi?fud
Ben Bullock
> >> also there is no corporate or financial backing and it is all
> >> volunteer work.
You state above "there is no corporate or financial backing", then you go
on to state
> there is some financial support for
> perl6 via TPF and microgrants. in fact the mozilla foundation (another
> project with plenty of corporate support) is one of the sponsors of
> perl6 development
> BB> This kind of talking reminds me very much of the comments around
> the GNU BB> Hurd kernel project ten years ago.
>
> which never got near the current level of perl6/parrot in terms of
> reality and release. parrot is released monthly with notable progress.
> perl6 has several compiler front ends and back ends to play with.
The GNU Hurd was in fact released & I believe the project still exists. I
don't know anything about the details of it, but I remember reading
things about it which really remind me of Perl 6: "this is very difficult
to implement but when it's finished it will be incredibly good, much
better than any other operating system kernel" etc.
> plenty to read there. no need to clutter up this group with perl6 talk.
It seems to me more like you're being evasive than worrying about clutter.
Ben Bullock
> in another post i pointed you to the perl6 wiki. and its FUD FAQ page
> will answer most of your negative questions:
>
> http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6/index.cgi?fud
Thank you, but I have seen that page before, and it and many similar web
pages are exactly what scares me about Perl 6. It's the Hans Reiser
defence, the "if I think of enough excuses, people are bound to believe
it" method of defending a project. Why would anyone need to write a page
like that, unless things actually were going wrong? The problem for Hans
Reiser was that the more excuses he made, the worse he made himself look.
In the end he was convicted based more on his bizarre excuses than
anything else. Perl 6 has a similar problem, the people who try to defend
it are making it look worse.
brian d foy
Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
> Will perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
Hi Lars,
Perl 6 makes most things some sort of object, but that doesn't mean
that you have to write classes and methods to use Perl 6. You'll still
see a mixture of programming types in Perl 6.
Is there a particular feature or structure that care about? No one is
going to take away your Perl 5, so no one is going to make you switch
to Perl 6. Perl 5 development is quite active; not only is Perl 5
actively maintained, but development of 5.12 is already underway.
Good luck,
brian d foy
<Pe...@PSDT.com> wrote:
> Are you thinking that Perl 6 is intended to be backwards compatible with
> Perl 5? It isn't, and it won't be. The runtime will be able to use Perl
> 5 modules, but that's a different story.
Remember, one of the goals of Perl 6 is to be able to run 95% of the
Perl 5 programs already out there. How that's going to happen I'm not
sure, but having a parrot compiler for Perl 5 will probably be part of
it.
The answer, however, is that you don't have to give up your Perl 5
interpreter to use Perl 6. Let your Perl 5 binary run your Perl 5 stuff
and let your Perl 6 interpreter take care of Perl 6.
Perl 5.10.0 was released in December, and the perl5porters is already
working on Perl 5.12. There's no immediate danger of Perl 5 stagnation
or disappearance.
Uri Guttman
BB> On Sat, 03 May 2008 04:08:39 +0000, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> >> also there is no corporate or financial backing and it is all
>> >> volunteer work.
BB> You state above "there is no corporate or financial backing", then you go
BB> on to state
>> there is some financial support for
>> perl6 via TPF and microgrants. in fact the mozilla foundation (another
>> project with plenty of corporate support) is one of the sponsors of
>> perl6 development
nothing compared to the larger foundations i mentioned. mozilla and
apache have sponsored or donated full time developers working for
them. tpf and perl6 have nothing like that. so of course work on perl6
is slower than those. and in many ways perl6 is much more complex than
mozilla or apache. those don't have nearly the theoretical issues than a
cutting edge language has.
BB> It seems to me more like you're being evasive than worrying about clutter.
huh? i pointed you to the wiki. how is that evasive? go read it and the
tons of perl6 material it links to. no need to bother this group.
Uri Guttman
BB> On Sat, 03 May 2008 04:15:12 +0000, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> in another post i pointed you to the perl6 wiki. and its FUD FAQ page
>> will answer most of your negative questions:
>>
>> http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6/index.cgi?fud
BB> Thank you, but I have seen that page before, and it and many
BB> similar web pages are exactly what scares me about Perl 6. It's
BB> the Hans Reiser defence, the "if I think of enough excuses, people
BB> are bound to believe it" method of defending a project. Why would
BB> anyone need to write a page like that, unless things actually were
BB> going wrong? The problem for Hans Reiser was that the more excuses
BB> he made, the worse he made himself look. In the end he was
BB> convicted based more on his bizarre excuses than anything
BB> else. Perl 6 has a similar problem, the people who try to defend
BB> it are making it look worse.
you are declaring yourself to be a fool with that statement. do you know
larry wall or damian conway and others to be making excuses? please shut
up before we drop the assumption of foolishness and label it a fact. i
know many of the perl6 developers personally and what you said is
insulting to them. also none of them are convicted murderers AFAIK.
Sherman Pendley
> in another post i pointed you to the perl6 wiki. and its FUD FAQ page
> will answer most of your negative questions:
FUD? Negative questions? Isn't this a bit much, when someone simply asks
"how's Perl 6 going over there, guys?"
Frankly, I'm beginning to agree with Ben - you're sounding awfully defensive
about this for some reason.
Hell, if there *are* problems, maybe you can recruit some help. :-)
Ben Bullock
> do you know
> larry wall or damian conway and others to be making excuses?
I don't know who wrote that Wiki page, but it's my feeling that it is
making unconvincing excuses.
Peter J. Holzer
> Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>> In our last episode, <20080501111811.498$r...@newsreader.com>, the lovely
>> and talented xho...@gmail.com broadcast on comp.lang.perl.misc:
>> > Peter Scott <Pe...@PSDT.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 01 May 2008 12:00:32 +0100, bugbear wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Lars Eighner wrote:
>> >> >> Will perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
>> >> >>
It will be a procedural language. It has a few elements from functional
languages but a perl 6 script will still consist of statements which are
executed in order.
>> >> > They'll be hellish backwards compatibility issues
>> >> > if it isn't!
>> >>
>> >> Backwards compatibility with what?
>> >>
>> >> Are you thinking that Perl 6 is intended to be backwards compatible
>> >> with Perl 5? It isn't, and it won't be. The runtime will be able to
>> >> use Perl 5 modules, but that's a different story.
>>
>> > What is the difference between that, and being backwards compatible?
>>
>> Backwards compatibility would imply that old scripts would still run
>> (sort of). Evidently what's being promised here is that (some?)
>> libraries will still sort of work.
>
> I'm still not seeing the difference.
The difference is that you cannot mix them in the same source file.
Like C and FORTRAN: They are obviously different languages and you
cannot mix them in the same source file. But you can compile both to x86
machine code, link them together and run the resulting program.
Similarly, you can (or will be able to) compile both Perl5 and Perl6
source code to Parrot bytecode[1] and the parrot interpreter can run
both. (or some other technique can be used, e.g., an embedded perl5
interpreter)
hp
Lars Eighner
lovely and talented Peter J. Holzer broadcast on comp.lang.perl.misc:
I didn't mean to start a world war. Everything I have heard about Perl 6
has led me to think that "Never" will be too soon for me.
The heart of my issue was whether I need to be reworking my perl scripts in
sh, awk, sed, grep, C, etc. against the day my OS goes to Perl 6. I gather
that the answer is: it is the last thing I need to worry about.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
Countdown: 262 days to go.
Dr.Ruud
> Why would anyone need to write a page like that,
> unless things actually were going wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
Ben Bullock
> Ben Bullock schreef:
>
>> Why would anyone need to write a page like that, unless things actually
>> were going wrong?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
Peter J. Holzer
> On Fri, 02 May 2008 14:25:53 +0200, Dr.Ruud wrote:
>> Perl 6 is a different language, Onion was coined as a better name for
>> it.
>
> Actually, 'Rakudo' is the accepted alternate moniker (referring to Perl 6
> running on Parrot).
For now it's only the name of an interpreter, not the name of the
language, AFAIK. But speaking of Rakudo: Has anyone had success actually
using it? parrot-0.6.1 compiles on my machine but fails some tests, and
even for very simple scripts (such as trying to access the elements of an
array in a loop) it either complains that something unimplemented or
crashes with a segfault.
hp
Peter J. Holzer
> In our last episode, <slrng1o8fo.me...@hrunkner.hjp.at>, the
> lovely and talented Peter J. Holzer broadcast on comp.lang.perl.misc:
>
>> On 2008-05-01 17:56, xho...@gmail.com <xho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>>>> In our last episode, <20080501111811.498$r...@newsreader.com>, the lovely
>>>> and talented xho...@gmail.com broadcast on comp.lang.perl.misc:
>>>> > Peter Scott <Pe...@PSDT.com> wrote:
>>>> >> Are you thinking that Perl 6 is intended to be backwards compatible
>>>> >> with Perl 5? It isn't, and it won't be. The runtime will be able to
>>>> >> use Perl 5 modules, but that's a different story.
>>> I'm still not seeing the difference.
>
>> The difference is that you cannot mix them in the same source file.
>> Like C and FORTRAN: They are obviously different languages and you
>> cannot mix them in the same source file. But you can compile both to x86
>> machine code, link them together and run the resulting program.
>> Similarly, you can (or will be able to) compile both Perl5 and Perl6
>> source code to Parrot bytecode[1] and the parrot interpreter can run
>> both. (or some other technique can be used, e.g., an embedded perl5
>> interpreter)
>
> I didn't mean to start a world war. Everything I have heard about Perl 6
> has led me to think that "Never" will be too soon for me.
>
> The heart of my issue was whether I need to be reworking my perl scripts in
> sh, awk, sed, grep, C, etc. against the day my OS goes to Perl 6.
I don't think the OS will "go to perl 6" any more than it will go from C
to C++ (my OS comes with both a C and C++ compiler, and I expect it will
still do that in 20 years, if the OS still exists). Perl 6 is a
different language than Perl 5 and if it ever becomes usable, your OS
and mine will come with both a perl5 and a perl6 interpreter. If there's
an interpreter which can deal with both (like some compilers can deal
with both C and C++), they may opt to provide that instead of two
separate interpreters.
hp
Peter J. Holzer
> lovely and talented nolo contendere broadcast on comp.lang.perl.misc:
>> On May 1, 1:40 pm, xhos...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> nolo contendere <simon.c...@fmr.com> wrote:
>>> > > Will perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
>>>
>>>
>>> I think he means "Not object oriented"
>
>> But can't one author code either procedurally or OO in the same
>> language?
>
> In some languages, yes (for example perl 5). In other, e.g. Java, not in any
> practical sense.
"A real programmer can write FORTRAN in any language."
I could show you some Java code (if I was permitted to) which shows that
it is possible to write Java code without any object orientation
whatsoever.
> Can you write code without objects, object wrappers, etc. and use functions
> and subroutines instead? Can you make function calls without object-like
> notation (i.e. little arrows made of hyphens and inequality signs pointing
> in counter-intuitive directions)?
"object-like notation" is just syntactic sugar. Whether you write
foo->bar(x, y);
bar(foo, x, y);
push y
push x
push foo
call bar
that's just the same, Whether that is object-oriented or not depends the
design of your program, not on the presence of little arrows.
hp
szr
>>>>>> "BB" == Ben Bullock <benkasmi...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 03 May 2008 04:08:39 +0000, Uri Guttman wrote:
> >> >> also there is no corporate or financial backing and it is all
> >> >> volunteer work.
>
>
> >> there is some financial support for
> >> perl6 via TPF and microgrants. in fact the mozilla foundation
> (another >> project with plenty of corporate support) is one of the
> sponsors of >> perl6 development
>
> nothing compared to the larger foundations i mentioned. mozilla and
> apache have sponsored or donated full time developers working for
> them. tpf and perl6 have nothing like that.
While I agree we all need to be patient, one might reasonably think that
8+ years is a rather long time to be working on one single piece of
software, no? I can personally understand the want to perfect everything
and finish all the intended features and fish out bugs, but I think most
would agree that is a rather long development time.
Compare this to the inital development of Perl 5:
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl ]
Perl 4 went through a series of maintenance releases, culminating
in Perl 4.036 in 1993. At that point, Larry Wall abandoned Perl 4
to begin work on Perl 5.
and
Perl 5 was released on October 17, 1994. It was a nearly complete
rewrite of the interpreter, and added many new features to the
language [...]
It took less than 2 years to get a initial release out. Granted, Perl
has grown and Perl 6 will be much bigger, but I don't see how one cannot
say this is taking a bit long, and that "second system syndrome" [1]
isn't playing a role in that.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_system_syndrome
--
szr
Stephan Bour
} > Ben Bullock <benkasmi...@gmail.com> writes:
}
} > On Sat, 03 May 2008 04:15:12 +0000, Uri Guttman wrote:
} > > in another post i pointed you to the perl6 wiki. and its FUD FAQ
} > > page will answer most of your negative questions:
} > >
} > > http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6/index.cgi?fud
}
}
} you are declaring yourself to be a fool with that statement.
No, it is you who continually make a fool of themselves.
} please shut up before we drop the assumption of foolishness and label
} it a fact.
You sure like telling people to "shut up"... were you bullied a lot in
primary school? Stop pretending you are king-of-Perl-land and pull your
head out of your ass and stop defending things for the pure sake of
defending and stop ignoring reality.
} i know many of the perl6 developers personally and what you said is
} insulting to them.
If you cannot take basic criticism, then don't create anything. Move
to Antarctica, as I'm sure you could code without fear of criticism from
the penguins.
} also none of them are convicted murderers AFAIK.
So what? Stop making all these bloody non-points, and please try to make
some sense.
Stephan.
Uri Guttman
SB> } you are declaring yourself to be a fool with that statement.
SB> No, it is you who continually make a fool of themselves.
nah, i only am a discontinous fool. i have sharp level jumps all over
the place.
SB> } please shut up before we drop the assumption of foolishness and label
SB> } it a fact.
SB> You sure like telling people to "shut up"... were you bullied a lot in
SB> primary school? Stop pretending you are king-of-Perl-land and pull your
SB> head out of your ass and stop defending things for the pure sake of
SB> defending and stop ignoring reality.
i am a one eyed king in the land of blind perl kiddies!
SB> } i know many of the perl6 developers personally and what you said is
SB> } insulting to them.
SB> If you cannot take basic criticism, then don't create anything. Move
SB> to Antarctica, as I'm sure you could code without fear of criticism from
SB> the penguins.
basic criticism? i hate basic. i am very critical of it.
SB> } also none of them are convicted murderers AFAIK.
SB> So what? Stop making all these bloody non-points, and please try to make
SB> some sense.
you obviously don't read slashdot or know about reiser. have some more
fun and read something else for a change.
i make enough sense to be understood by those i want to understand
me. works fine.
Abigail
szr (sz...@szromanMO.comVE) wrote on VCCCLVIII September MCMXCIII in
<URL:news:fvdpk...@news4.newsguy.com>:
::
:: So given this, why would one, who have plenty of Perl code, feel
:: compelled to choose Perl 6 over Perl 5 and spend what could huge amounts
:: of time rewriting a lot of code?
The same kind of people that over the years left Perl5 behind and started
coding in Ruby, Dylan, Java or Python.
There will always be people not, or no longer, satisfied by the language
they are using. Many of those people switch language.
Abigail
--
package Z;use overload'""'=>sub{$b++?Hacker:Another};
sub TIESCALAR{bless\my$y=>Z}sub FETCH{$a++?Perl:Just}
$,=$";my$x=tie+my$y=>Z;print$y,$x,$y,$x,"\n";#Abigail
brian d foy
wrote:
> While I agree we all need to be patient, one might reasonably think that
> 8+ years is a rather long time to be working on one single piece of
> software, no?
Maybe, but no one started writing code right away, so the Perl 6
implementations are younger than the idea of Perl 6.
I really consider the real work to have started around 2005. People
sorta wandered around for a bit after the coding got started and only
really hit on the right path and right group of people around that
time. No one really wants to talk about that though, and are content to
let people think it's just taking a long time rather than admit having
problems at first.
John Bokma
> Uri Guttman <u...@stemsystems.com> writes:
>
>> in another post i pointed you to the perl6 wiki. and its FUD FAQ page
>> will answer most of your negative questions:
[..]
> Frankly, I'm beginning to agree with Ben - you're sounding awfully
> defensive about this for some reason.
From what I've read, written by Uri, it's somewhat his writing style.
Don't read too much in it, and certainly not that Perl6 is going down the
drain, and that there is something to hide.
I wonder why people are so eager to get Perl6. It's done when it's done.
What's missing in Perl5? A lot of Perl6 features are available via
modules. Personally I see Perl6 more like a new language than more of the
same (Perl). If you want to bite your teeth in a new language, there are
plenty to pick from.
And last time I checked, there was plenty of room for help *with* Perl. If
I have more time available, I'll want to look into that. From what I've
read so far, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to actually help with
Perl6, there are plenty of things to do that require just some good
programming skills.
--
John
Gordon Etly
> Sherman Pendley <spam...@dot-app.org> wrote:
> > Uri Guttman <u...@stemsystems.com> writes:
> > > in another post i pointed you to the perl6 wiki. and its FUD FAQ
> > > page will answer most of your negative questions:
> > Frankly, I'm beginning to agree with Ben - you're sounding awfully
> > defensive about this for some reason.
> From what I've read, written by Uri, it's somewhat his writing style.
I don't think it's just his writting style. Many times he just jumps in
to defend someone or something and often takes it way too far. He's of
the type that doesn't want to see things through any other lens than his
own.
> I wonder why people are so eager to get Perl6. It's done when it's
> done. What's missing in Perl5? A lot of Perl6 features are available
> via modules. Personally I see Perl6 more like a new language than
> more of the same (Perl). If you want to bite your teeth in a new
> language, there are plenty to pick from.
Yes, many features that were slated for Perl 6 have found their way into
recent Perl 5 releases (like 5.10, imho the greatest release to date.)
OTOH, Perl 6 has been in devlopement for a lot longer time than any
other other major release of Perl.
Yes it's bigger and perhaps actual code writting didn't start off the
bat, but taking over 8 years (vs the almost 2 years it took to create
and release Perl 5) seems to be very long for such a deleopment, even
for a team of just volunteers, and I think this is why many people are
becoming or are so concerned. It is indeed difficult to fathom what
could be taking so long :)
> And last time I checked, there was plenty of room for help *with*
> Perl. If I have more time available, I'll want to look into that.
> From what I've read so far, you don't have to be a rocket scientist
> to actually help with Perl6, there are plenty of things to do that
> require just some good programming skills.
Which scared me even more that Perl 6 will be huge, with features
bursting at the seams. At the very least it would be nice if they could
throw us a bit more bones as to what is going on, and perhaps more
people might get interested and help?
--
G.Etly
A. Sinan Unur
@mid.individual.net:
<snipped>
*** Keep a posting address and stick with it ***
!*!> PLONK <!*!
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1u...@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
comp.lang.perl.misc guidelines on the WWW:
http://www.rehabitation.com/clpmisc/
Ben Bullock
> I wonder why people are so eager to get Perl6.
I suppose the same reason people pay more money to get the latest TV or
camera or something? Or the same reason people buy a newspaper even
though they bought one the day before? People are always interested in
new things.
> It's done when it's done.
If you try to sound too nonchalant about it, I wonder why you aren't
interested. If you use Perl, it's natural to wonder about the next major
version. Your attitude is just a bit weird.
> What's missing in Perl5? A lot of Perl6 features are available via
> modules. Personally I see Perl6 more like a new language than more of
> the same (Perl). If you want to bite your teeth in a new language, there
> are plenty to pick from.
So you're telling people to pick a new language rather than Perl, such as
PHP, Python, Ruby, or JavaScript?
I discovered that Perl six has a funny new regex operator \N which
replaces . and no more /s and /m, and the . now equals [.\n]. Yes I would
like to try this new language out, what is so strange about that?
> And last time I checked, there was plenty of room for help *with* Perl.
> If I have more time available, I'll want to look into that. From what
> I've read so far, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to actually
> help with Perl6, there are plenty of things to do that require just some
> good programming skills.
I didn't read this information, so perhaps you can tell us where we can
read it.
John Bokma
> John Bokma wrote:
>> Sherman Pendley <spam...@dot-app.org> wrote:
>
>> > Uri Guttman <u...@stemsystems.com> writes:
[..]
>> From what I've read, written by Uri, it's somewhat his writing style.
>
> I don't think it's just his writting style. Many times he just jumps
> in to defend someone or something and often takes it way too far. He's
> of the type that doesn't want to see things through any other lens
> than his own.
Yup, that's online discussing stuff for you. I am a little like that too
I guess, and I see this behavior a lot. I have little doubt that if you
meet those people IRL they are really nice people. Also, dealing every
day with people who are too lazy to even pick a decent subject, and
expect that "the Usenet people" act as their private help desk (free at
that), makes someone not always replying in a nice way, even to serious
questions (it's the main reason why I am giving up on Usenet again (and
permanently this time), real soon).
> Yes, many features that were slated for Perl 6 have found their way
> into recent Perl 5 releases (like 5.10, imho the greatest release to
> date.) OTOH, Perl 6 has been in devlopement for a lot longer time than
> any other other major release of Perl.
Duh! Times are different, it's not the late 80's anymore. If it helps,
think of Perl 6 as a new language, not a next release of Perl 5.x that
requires that the first digit is incremented.
> Yes it's bigger and perhaps actual code writting didn't start off the
> bat, but taking over 8 years (vs the almost 2 years it took to create
> and release Perl 5) seems to be very long for such a deleopment, even
> for a team of just volunteers, and I think this is why many people are
> becoming or are so concerned. It is indeed difficult to fathom what
> could be taking so long :)
I've no idea either. But I do know that some of my projects for personal
use do take a long, long time to finish. Why not help out with Perl 6?
Then not only you'll learn why it's going slow, but you could actually
help to speed things up.
But why the hurry? PHP is at version 6, (or is it 7 already) and from
what I've heard their Unicode support is still flaky.
>> And last time I checked, there was plenty of room for help *with*
>> Perl. If I have more time available, I'll want to look into that.
>> From what I've read so far, you don't have to be a rocket scientist
>> to actually help with Perl6, there are plenty of things to do that
>> require just some good programming skills.
>
> Which scared me even more that Perl 6 will be huge, with features
> bursting at the seams.
From what I've glimpsed so far (and that's a little) the language is
much more clean compared to Perl 5. Of course some of the decisions I
don't like (to me $l[3] was always very clear), but on the other hand
I've the feeling that the language and got cleaner, and many features
just got more powerful. Think of the MS-DOS wildcards versus the regular
expressions you can use in Perl 5.x. You make it sound negative. You
*don't have to use them all* (it's not Pokemon after all).
> At the very least it would be nice if they could
> throw us a bit more bones as to what is going on, and perhaps more
> people might get interested and help?
So if someone writes: too busy with other things, and I have a family
too, you suddenly want to become a Perl 6 developer? IMO if you want to
help, just plan a few hours a week as "helping with Perl 6". Like I
said, I do check the todo list now and then, and there is room for help,
even simple things.
--
John
John Bokma
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 21:59:10 +0000, John Bokma wrote:
>
>> I wonder why people are so eager to get Perl6.
>
> I suppose the same reason people pay more money to get the latest TV
> or camera or something?
Well, maybe there might be a solution; donate some money.
Anyway, I am also still waiting for affordable holographic storage, and
a gazillion other goodies. But it's done when it's done. What's the
point of trying to blame someone or the methodology if it's just: lack
of manpower and lack of sufficient funds? (Just guessing here).
>> It's done when it's done.
>
> If you try to sound too nonchalant about it, I wonder why you aren't
> interested.
I am interested, I mean I own even a copy of "Perl 6 and Parrot
Essentials" [1]. But IMNSHO it's pointless to try to guess here why Perl
6 isn't in the shops already. I am sure that if the people working on it
know had bumped into an issue that could be overcome by disclosing that
issue on usenet, it would already have been done.
So, yeah, I am interested, but on the other hand I see Perl 6 as a new
language roughly based on Perl, or like a member of the Perl family
(which IMO includes PHP, even if it's a half-witted bastard).
As a professional Perl programmer I have no problem with waiting. I
already have often problems convincing customers to move to Perl 5.8, or
update their 4+ year old modules. I even haven't checked out Perl 5.10
yet.
Like I already wrote, if you want to play with Perl 6, it's already
possible, and has been possible for quite some time. You can even use
(some) Perl 6 features by using modules with Perl 5. How many
manufacturers of TVs, camera's etc. let you play with a prototype at
home?
> If you use Perl, it's natural to wonder about the next
> major version. Your attitude is just a bit weird.
Nah, you just guessed wrong. I do more than wonder, but it's pointless
to get all upset on Usenet on Perl 6 not being ready, nor that work on
Perl 7 hasn't started yet. Perl still does evolve, and to me it's
important that the next 5.x doesn't break too much things, and I think
the people who work on it (or have been working on it) do excellent
jobs. If I want Perl 6 released sooner, I have two options: donate a
significant sum of money, or contribute myself. Trying to find flaws in
the current development process, or waiting for news on why things are
slow is just IMNSHO futile.
>> What's missing in Perl5? A lot of Perl6 features are available via
>> modules. Personally I see Perl6 more like a new language than more of
>> the same (Perl). If you want to bite your teeth in a new language,
>> there are plenty to pick from.
>
> So you're telling people to pick a new language rather than Perl, such
> as PHP, Python, Ruby, or JavaScript?
I consider Perl 6 a new language (you quoted that). Some people just
want to learn new languages (I was like that many years ago, I learned a
lot of languages, and it's a good thing to do, I consider it an
important part of learning to program. The next step is learning that
specialism beats knowning of many things a bit :-D). Those people can
either play with what's available or, if that doesn't make them happy,
pick up another language.
> I discovered that Perl six has a funny new regex operator \N which
> replaces . and no more /s and /m, and the . now equals [.\n]. Yes I
> would like to try this new language out, what is so strange about
> that?
But how is knowing why it's taking so long going to make it available
real soon now?
>> And last time I checked, there was plenty of room for help *with*
>> Perl. If I have more time available, I'll want to look into that.
>> From what I've read so far, you don't have to be a rocket scientist
>> to actually help with Perl6, there are plenty of things to do that
>> require just some good programming skills.
>
> I didn't read this information, so perhaps you can tell us where we
> can read it.
For parrot: http://www.parrotcode.org/todo.html
--
John
Gordon Etly
> "Gordon Etly" <g...@INVALIDbentsys.com> wrote:
> > John Bokma wrote:
> > > From what I've read, written by Uri, it's somewhat his writing
> > > style.
> > I don't think it's just his writting style. Many times he just jumps
> > in to defend someone or something and often takes it way too far.
> > He's of the type that doesn't want to see things through any other
> > lens than his own.
> Yup, that's online discussing stuff for you. I am a little like that
> too I guess, and I see this behavior a lot. I have little doubt that
> if you meet those people IRL they are really nice people. Also,
> dealing every day with people who are too lazy to even pick a decent
> subject, and expect that "the Usenet people" act as their private
> help desk (free at that), makes someone not always replying in a nice
> way, even to serious questions (it's the main reason why I am giving
> up on Usenet again (and permanently this time), real soon).
While I mostly agree, I still believe that if one feels they are going
to reply in a negative manner, it may be better just not to post. The
worst part about how people like post is they act as if someone is
forcing them to post, when the reality is they could just move on to
another post or take a break in general. It seems people who are
otherwise quite helpful, when they start posting negatively, they lose
focus on the helping aspect.
> > Yes, many features that were slated for Perl 6 have found their way
> > into recent Perl 5 releases (like 5.10, imho the greatest release to
> > date.) OTOH, Perl 6 has been in devlopement for a lot longer time
> > than any other other major release of Perl.
> Duh! Times are different, it's not the late 80's anymore. If it helps,
> think of Perl 6 as a new language, not a next release of Perl 5.x that
> requires that the first digit is incremented.
Actually I believe Perl 5 came out in the mid 90's or so, and it was too
reguarded as a new language comapred to Perl 4 and before, was it not?
(Granted, Perl 6 does seems like a much larger leap from P5 than P5 from
P4.)
> > Yes it's bigger and perhaps actual code writting didn't start off
> > the
> > bat, but taking over 8 years (vs the almost 2 years it took to
> > create
> > and release Perl 5) seems to be very long for such a deleopment,
> > even
> > for a team of just volunteers, and I think this is why many people
> > are becoming or are so concerned. It is indeed difficult to fathom
> > what could be taking so long :)
> I've no idea either. But I do know that some of my projects for
> personal use do take a long, long time to finish. Why not help out
> with Perl 6? Then not only you'll learn why it's going slow, but you
> could actually help to speed things up.
Agreed.
> But why the hurry? PHP is at version 6, (or is it 7 already) and from
> what I've heard their Unicode support is still flaky.
According to http://www.php.net/downloads.php, the currently stable
release is 5.2.6, so unless you're referring to the minor part, I'm not
usre where you got those numbers.
> > At the very least it would be nice if they could
> > throw us a bit more bones as to what is going on, and perhaps more
> > people might get interested and help?
> So if someone writes: too busy with other things, and I have a family
> too, you suddenly want to become a Perl 6 developer? IMO if you want
> to help, just plan a few hours a week as "helping with Perl 6". Like I
> said, I do check the todo list now and then, and there is room for
> help, even simple things.
Agreed, more peopel could check that list and it might help, but one
also has to wonder if they are trying to do too many things at a time.
IMHO, it may (have) be(en) better to do some features for the initial
release, get it out, and then add additional feature for the next
release(s), rather than everything at once.
--
G.Etly
John Bokma
> John Bokma wrote:
>> "Gordon Etly" <g...@INVALIDbentsys.com> wrote:
[..]
>> Yup, that's online discussing stuff for you. I am a little like that
>> too I guess, and I see this behavior a lot. I have little doubt that
>> if you meet those people IRL they are really nice people. Also,
>> dealing every day with people who are too lazy to even pick a decent
>> subject, and expect that "the Usenet people" act as their private
>> help desk (free at that), makes someone not always replying in a nice
>> way, even to serious questions (it's the main reason why I am giving
>> up on Usenet again (and permanently this time), real soon).
>
> While I mostly agree, I still believe that if one feels they are going
> to reply in a negative manner, it may be better just not to post.
Yes, I have tried that as well, and decided to give up on Usenet
entirely (well, almost). Too many people who want free help on their own
terms. I don't mind the free part, but I do mind that instead of a
"thank you" one might get a personal attack instead.
> The
> worst part about how people like post is they act as if someone is
> forcing them to post, when the reality is they could just move on to
> another post or take a break in general. It seems people who are
> otherwise quite helpful, when they start posting negatively, they lose
> focus on the helping aspect.
Yup, the people who need help insist too hard on getting help, and
forgot often that this is not a help desk. People who want to help often
get carried away: they have reserved a certain amount of time to post
every day, and if there is nothing to post, they look closer at other
posts. At least that's how it works for me.
>> Duh! Times are different, it's not the late 80's anymore. If it
>> helps, think of Perl 6 as a new language, not a next release of Perl
>> 5.x that requires that the first digit is incremented.
>
> Actually I believe Perl 5 came out in the mid 90's or so, and it was
> too reguarded as a new language comapred to Perl 4 and before, was it
> not? (Granted, Perl 6 does seems like a much larger leap from P5 than
> P5 from P4.)
I learned Perl with Perl 4, and to me it was not a big step to Perl 5.
All new things where just - to me, and what I can recall from that time
- logical extensions to Perl 4. With Perl 6 I don't have that feeling.
To me it looks more like a new language based on Perl 5. (Or: a logical
rewrite of Perl 5 instead of a logical extension).
>> But why the hurry? PHP is at version 6, (or is it 7 already) and from
>> what I've heard their Unicode support is still flaky.
>
> According to http://www.php.net/downloads.php, the currently stable
> release is 5.2.6, so unless you're referring to the minor part, I'm
> not usre where you got those numbers.
<http://blog.agoraproduction.com/index.php?/archives/19-Installing-PHP6-
F
or-beginners.html>
Written almost 1.5 years ago.
> Agreed, more peopel could check that list and it might help, but one
> also has to wonder if they are trying to do too many things at a time.
> IMHO, it may (have) be(en) better to do some features for the initial
> release, get it out, and then add additional feature for the next
> release(s), rather than everything at once.
But that is exactly what has been done. You can have some of the
features already by using Perl6:: modules [1] in Perl5. Moreover, some
features (like say) are "backported" to Perl5.
[1] Perl6::Junction, Perl6::Role, Perl6::Binding, etc.
--
John
Gordon Etly
> > While I mostly agree, I still believe that if one feels they are
> > going to reply in a negative manner, it may be better just not to
> > post.
> Yes, I have tried that as well, and decided to give up on Usenet
> entirely (well, almost). Too many people who want free help on their
> own terms. I don't mind the free part, but I do mind that instead of a
> "thank you" one might get a personal attack instead.
I don't really see all that many people who come to seek help suddenly
spurring into a personal attack, and when they do, it is often in
response to a sour reply they got from someone who found it necessarily
to make a less-than-helpful remark.
Yes, there are many ungrateful people out there, but at the same time
there are some people, some of which can be otherwise helpful, who end
up instigating a flame war they latter blame on the original poster, all
of which could of been prevented has that regular simply ignored that
post or thread and moved on to the next. I've seen this happen far too
often over the past decade and a half. It's far too easy to blame people
who do not have established reputations.
> > The worst part about how people like post is they act as if someone
> > is
> > forcing them to post, when the reality is they could just move on to
> > another post or take a break in general. It seems people who are
> > otherwise quite helpful, when they start posting negatively, they
> > lose focus on the helping aspect.
> People who want to help often get carried away: they have reserved a
> certain amount of time to post every day, and if there is nothing to
> post, they look closer at other posts. At least that's how it works
> for me.
That isn't an excuse for post in a needlessly negative manner. It
doesn't serve anyone and too often it takes threads in the wrong
direction.
> > > But why the hurry? PHP is at version 6, (or is it 7 already) and
> > > from what I've heard their Unicode support is still flaky.
> > According to http://www.php.net/downloads.php, the currently stable
> > release is 5.2.6, so unless you're referring to the minor part, I'm
> > not usre where you got those numbers.
> <http://blog.agoraproduction.com/index.php?/archives/19-Installing-PHP6-
> F or-beginners.html>
>
> Written almost 1.5 years ago.
That doesn't change the fact the newest I can find is 5.2.6, so I have
conclude that that article is mistaken.
--
G.Etly
Ben Bullock
> Yes, I have tried that as well, and decided to give up on Usenet
> entirely (well, almost).
Typical addict talk. If you were going to give up you would have given
up already instead of keeping on posting (three times now) about how
you're going to give up. I'll bet you even post a followup to this.
> Too many people who want free help on their own terms.
Aw shucks!
> I don't mind the free part, but I do mind that instead of a
> "thank you" one might get a personal attack instead.
What I have seen here is lots of people coming in to get help and then
getting fairly unpleasant responses from some of the "regulars". It's
hardly surprising that people are often too scared to post a follow
up.
> Yup, the people who need help insist too hard on getting help, and
> forgot often that this is not a help desk.
I don't notice it. What I notice here as a general pattern is that
many random people come in, ask just one question, then leave. I'm
sure that the reason some of them leave is because they're alarmed or
confused by many of the responses they get.
> People who want to help often
> get carried away: they have reserved a certain amount of time to post
> every day, and if there is nothing to post, they look closer at other
> posts.
Translation: the "regulars" get bored and decide to start harassing
people, following up posters with lots of pointless, whiney complaints
about trivial things.
> I learned Perl with Perl 4, and to me it was not a big step to Perl 5.
> All new things where just - to me, and what I can recall from that time
> - logical extensions to Perl 4. With Perl 6 I don't have that feeling.
> To me it looks more like a new language based on Perl 5. (Or: a logical
> rewrite of Perl 5 instead of a logical extension).
My guess is that you don't really know anything about Perl 6, so
perhaps your IMNSHO should be IMHO.
--
perl -e'@a=qw/Harder Better Faster Stronger/;use Time::HiRes "ualarm";$|=1;
$t=432250;@v=("Work It","Make It","Do It","Makes Us");sub w{("")x$_[0]}@z=(0,2,
4,6);@f=split"/","More Than/Ever/Hour/After/Our/Work Is/Never/Over";@e=((map{
join(":",@f[$_,$_+1])}@z),"");@w=map"$v[$_]:$a[$_]",0..3;@h=(@w,@e);@j=w(5);
@t=(@v,@j,@a,@j);@l=(@t,@f[@z],@j,(map{$f[$_+1]}@z),@j,@t,@w,@j,@e,w(4),
(@h)x6,w(9),(@h)x7);ualarm$t,$t;$SIG{ALRM}=\&b;while(1){}sub b{print p()}
sub p{if(($c++)%2){exit if!@l;if($_=shift@l){if(/(.*):(.*)/){$s=$2;$1}else{
"$_\n"}}}elsif($s){" $s\n",$s=""}}'
John Bokma
> John Bokma wrote:
>> "Gordon Etly" <g.e...@bentsys.INVALID.com> wrote:
>> > John Bokma wrote:
[ Usenet ]
>> People who want to help often get carried away: they have reserved a
>> certain amount of time to post every day, and if there is nothing to
>> post, they look closer at other posts. At least that's how it works
>> for me.
>
> That isn't an excuse for post in a needlessly negative manner. It
> doesn't serve anyone and too often it takes threads in the wrong
> direction.
It wasn't an excuse, but an explanation of at least how I think I
behave.
>> <http://blog.agoraproduction.com/index.php?/archives/19-Installing-PHP
>> 6- F or-beginners.html>
>>
>> Written almost 1.5 years ago.
>
> That doesn't change the fact the newest I can find is 5.2.6, so I have
> conclude that that article is mistaken.
A simple search with Google could have shown you that the article was
not mistaken.
--
John
Gordon Etly
> "Gordon Etly" wrote:
> > John Bokma wrote:
> > > "Gordon Etly" <g.e...@bentsys.INVALID.com> wrote:
> > > > John Bokma wrote:
> [ Usenet ]
> > > People who want to help often get carried away: they have reserved
> > > a
> > > certain amount of time to post every day, and if there is nothing
> > > to
> > > post, they look closer at other posts. At least that's how it
> > > works
> > > for me.
> > That isn't an excuse for post in a needlessly negative manner. It
> > doesn't serve anyone and too often it takes threads in the wrong
> > direction.
> It wasn't an excuse, but an explanation of at least how I think I
> behave.
But you were talking about your behavior, you were talking about (your
opinion of) the behavior of "People who want to help", not yourself. The
way you wrote it is very well an excuse for why they act the way they
do, but I'm sorry, it doesn't make such negative behavior it anymore
right.
> > > <http://blog.agoraproduction.com/index.php?/archives/19-Installing-PHP
> > > 6- F or-beginners.html>
> > >
> > > Written almost 1.5 years ago.
> > That doesn't change the fact the newest I can find is 5.2.6, so I
> > have conclude that that article is mistaken.
> A simple search with Google could have shown you that the article was
> not mistaken.
Ok, granted, but keep in mind that PHP 6 is still in development; no
stable release is available, so it would seem we were both right, and I
stand corrected :)
I am surprised they don't actually make any mention of PHP 6 on the main
download page, though there is a link to snaps.php.net on the left hand
sidebar.
--
G.Etly
David Combs
John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>"Gordon Etly" <g...@INVALIDbentsys.com> wrote:
>
>> John Bokma wrote:
>>> Sherman Pendley <spam...@dot-app.org> wrote:
>>
>>> > Uri Guttman <u...@stemsystems.com> writes:
>
>[..]
>
>>> From what I've read, written by Uri, it's somewhat his writing style.
>>
>> I don't think it's just his writting style. Many times he just jumps
>> in to defend someone or something and often takes it way too far. He's
>> of the type that doesn't want to see things through any other lens
>> than his own.
>
>Yup, that's online discussing stuff for you. I am a little like that too
>I guess, and I see this behavior a lot. I have little doubt that if you
>meet those people IRL they are really nice people. Also, dealing every
>day with people who are too lazy to even pick a decent subject, and
>expect that "the Usenet people" act as their private help desk (free at
>that), makes someone not always replying in a nice way, even to serious
>questions (it's the main reason why I am giving up on Usenet again (and
>permanently this time), real soon).
No, no, no, NO!, damnit, NO!
Can't do that -- you're NEEDED here, John.
You guys constitute an *invaluable* resource for, what, maybe thousands
of people. While you answer one guy's questions, etc, there's a whole
bunch of us looking on, taking advantage of the (needed) extra education
we get here.
Any one of you gurus quit, and we all suffer.
No sweat, you say, there's plenty of others (what -- 10, 20 or so) who
can equally well answer these questions.
Maybe so -- but it cuts down on the among-gurus conversation, which
leads to all kinds of interesting pearisms, etc.
If some guy is bothering you, nagging you, being nasty, warn him
or her once, and if he or she persists in the same mode, do the
usual PLONK! action we've gotten used to seeing here.
Please, you guys stick around.
Heck, we could give a party for your guys at yapc! (Unfortunately
I can't be there.)
Anyway, you (and the rest of you) *are* appreciated, giving up
all that time to be of service here.
THANKS!
David
Gordon Etly
> In article <Xns9AA09211F9...@130.133.1.4>,
> John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
> > Yup, that's online discussing stuff for you. I am a little like that
> > too I guess, and I see this behavior a lot. I have little doubt that
> > if you meet those people IRL they are really nice people. Also,
> > dealing every day with people who are too lazy to even pick a decent
> > subject, and expect that "the Usenet people" act as their private
> > help desk (free at that), makes someone not always replying in a
> > nice way, even to serious questions (it's the main reason why I am
> > giving up on Usenet again (and permanently this time), real soon).
> No, no, no, NO!, damnit, NO!
>
> Can't do that -- you're NEEDED here, John.
>
> You guys constitute an *invaluable* resource for, what, maybe
> thousands of people. While you answer one guy's questions, etc,
> there's a whole bunch of us looking on, taking advantage of the
> (needed) extra education we get here.
... <snip rest of brown nosing>
Yes, one should be appreciative of anyone who offers you help. But
people like John, who complain about "lazy" or ungrateful people, are
misrepresenting reality. The people who fit into that description would
be of a minority. Many people who receive decent help seem quite
thankful. What I see happening, though, is some people, who otherwise
offer actual help, taking out some frustrations from dealings with
someone else on people who clearly didn't deserve it, and then refuse to
admit any wrong doing and then other people come in to blindly defend
them.
--
G.Etly
Jürgen Exner
[nothing of consequence]
"Gordon Etly" <.@.invalid>, please meet your other personalities in my
killfile
Author: Gordon Etly <g...@bentsys.com>
Author: Gordon Etly <ge...@bentsys-INVALID.com>
Author: Gordon Etly <g.e...@bent-INVALID-sys.com>
Author: Gordon Etly <g.e...@bentsys.INVALID.com>?
Killfile, please welcome "Gordon Etly" <.@.invalid>, too.
jue
Sherman Pendley
> Yes, one should be appreciative of anyone who offers you help.
You weren't.
> Many people who receive decent help seem quite thankful.
You did, and you weren't.
> What I see happening, though, is some people, who otherwise
> offer actual help, taking out some frustrations
One can see unicorns, if one squints just right and believes strongly
enough that they're there.
You were wrong about "PERL vs. Perl". Grow up and deal with it already.
This grudge of yours, and the constant bitching and moaning that comes
out of it, is truly pathetic.
Seriously. You had a misconception about the name of the language, and
you were corrected. Now you're carrying on as if the people here all got
together to shoot your dog or something. You *seriously* need to learn
some perspective.
Or keep whining - I don't care, your latest sock puppet is joining all
your others in my killfile. *plonk*
sherm--
--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Gordon Etly
> Gordon Etly wrote:
> > Yes, one should be appreciative of anyone who offers you help.
> You weren't.
Trying to speak for me now, are you? And who exactly offered *me* help?
> > Many people who receive decent help seem quite thankful.
> You did, and you weren't.
Please get over your self and stop making all these assumptions. So far
you are wrong on all counts. I was not offered such help, and further,
this was not about me, so clearly you have missed the entire point
altogether.
> > What I see happening, though, is some people, who otherwise
> > offer actual help, taking out some frustrations
> You were wrong about "PERL vs. Perl".
Why? Because *you* say so? Do you even *know* what my argument actually
was? Or are you just going along with the crowd instead of thinking for
yourself and bothering to actually fully read what you are attempting to
comment on?
> This grudge of yours, and the constant bitching and moaning
How interesting. My commenting has as always been in response to someone
else, when I see something I really don't like. There are times with
people from your crowd actively refer back to subjects that were
supposedly "closed" already. Uri did this not too long ago, yet I saw no
one complaining then. He and others join in and complain when I comment
on someone else's post, yet it's ok for them.
I am not the one carrying any vendetta. I just call 'em out as I see
'em. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: don't want your posting
commented on, then please don't post, because that's exactly what you
are inviting by posting in an open/public forum or newsgroup.
> Seriously. You had a misconception about the name of the language, and
That wasn't what the argument was about. You are falling down the same
road as other people; assume you know what something was without
actually bothering to really check. This has become to typical of your
crowd.
> Or keep whining - I don't care, your latest sock puppet is joining all
> your others in my killfile. *plonk*
"Gordon Etly", my name, is the only name I've ever used, but keep
believing what you want to believe.
--
G.Etly
Sherman Pendley
> Sherman Pendley wrote:
>
>> This grudge of yours, and the constant bitching and moaning
>
> How interesting. My commenting has as always been in response to someone
> else, when I see something I really don't like.
Precisely - you only comment when you don't like something. Most people
call that bitching and moaning. You're not even *trying* to make a positive
contribution here. You're like a dog pissing on food he doesn't want,
just to make sure the other dogs won't eat it.
> There are times with
> people from your crowd actively refer back to subjects that were
> supposedly "closed" already.
Because I believe that subject to be the root cause of your unhappiness
with this group. You started your life here with a simple question based
on a misunderstanding of how TROFF formats man pages - the name of the
language is capitalized at top of "man perl" because that's how *all*
man pages are formatted. If you look at "man sh" you'll see "SH" at the
top too, and "PYTHON" at the top of "man python." The fact that the top
line of a man page is all caps implies *nothing* about the correct name
of the documented tool.
That misunderstanding isn't unreasonable - it's a natural conclusion to
arrive at. The problem arose when several folks pointed out your mistake,
and you launched on a tirade about how "PERL" should be acceptable.
If you had simply said "oops, my bad," you wouldn't be in the doghouse
here. It's your own obnoxious reaction to being corrected that's the source
of your problems getting along with the regulars here, not your misspelling
of the word "Perl."
>> Or keep whining - I don't care, your latest sock puppet is joining all
>> your others in my killfile. *plonk*
>
> "Gordon Etly", my name, is the only name I've ever used
Don't play dumb. I'm talking about your ever-changing email address, and
you damn well know that. You're not even using real addresses - the only
reason you're changing it is to escape from killfiles.
Please - if you hate this group so much, just leave. Or, at least stop
being a hypocrite, telling people to killfile you and then changing your
address just to escape those killfiles and get in everyone's face again.
Gordon Etly
> Gordon Etly wrote:
> > > This grudge of yours, and the constant bitching and moaning
> > How interesting. My commenting has as always been in response to
> > someone else, when I see something I really don't like.
> Precisely - you only comment when you don't like something.
No, not *only*, but it's anyone's right to do so. If you don't like it,
don't post.
> > There are times with people from your crowd actively refer back
> > to subjects that were supposedly "closed" already.
> Because I believe that subject to be the root cause of your
> unhappiness with this group.
Far from it. It was more like the straw that broke the camel's back (pun
not really intended.)
> You started your life here with a simple question based on
> a misunderstanding of how TROFF formats man pages - the name
> of the language is capitalized at top of "man perl" because
No, it had nothing to do with the formatting of man pages. That was not
the point I was making, and thus you obviously you missed it entirely.
> > > Or keep whining - I don't care, your latest sock puppet is joining
> > > all your others in my killfile. *plonk*
> > "Gordon Etly", my name, is the only name I've ever used
> I'm talking about your ever-changing email address,
Email addresses are a variable field. They can always change. The name
part is what is usually constant, and that's what matters (that's what
you see when you look at the list of posts in a news group), and my
"ever changing email address" was just a visual aid to demonstrate that
point.
I have never changed my name, so you know who I am - my name *identifies
me*, just as "Sherman Pendley" identifies you. Sure, a name isn't
necessarily a *unique* identifier, but neither is the email address part
(it's possible for multiple people to share one email address, and email
address can change at any given time.)
> Please - if you hate this group so much
Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I never said I hated this news
group. What I dislike is how a certain set of people sometimes conduct
themselves, and refuse to understand that if they do not wish to be
commented upon, then they shouldn't post.
> Or, at least stop being a hypocrite, telling people to killfile you
> and then changing
> your address just to escape those killfiles and get in everyone's
> face again.
There you go again. I never said that. I said that someone wanted to
killfile me, they could do it by my name, because that is constant.
Email addresses are not constant. One can always change it, so
killfiling based on an email address field is inherently unreliable.
--
G.Etly