develooper Front page | perl.bootstrap | Postings from July 2000

Re: Working Group Proposal

Curtis Poe
July 21, 2000 12:53
Re: Working Group Proposal
Message ID:
> > Reusing a compiler parser on that is likely to be a challenge :-)
> >
> > I don't have a problem with wanting to make it more possible to handle
> > in this sort of context - but don't assume that splitting out the parser
> > a "magic bullet".
> That's exactly why I'm in favor of having a well-defined grammer that lets
> you write your own parser if you think you need to.
> > And I don't think
> > that redesigning Perl's syntax to be easily parseable is going to get
> > anywhere - the result just wouldn't be Perl, in some very fundamental
> I don't believe that has to be the case.

I'm looking over these comments and keep thinking that while issues like
this have contributed to the quirkiness in Perl that we all know and love,
it's also contributed to Perl's rather cool acceptance in some areas.  The
best Perl IDEs that I have seen have been nothing more than glorified text
editors with a bit of debugger support thrown in.  This is due, in part, to
the "only Perl can understand Perl" issue.  While I know that some elitists
will sneer at the idea of making Perl easier to parse, the fact remains that
many companies who need a programming solution may choose a language other
than Perl because the other languages don't have issues like this and are
easier to bring new coders up to speed.  I have a friend of mine who was
practically in tears yesterday because his company chose Python over Perl --
and my friend agreed because it was the right decision for what they were

I absolutely love Perl, but if it keeps blazing its own trail, it may
realize why others aren't on it. Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About