Front page | perl.perl6.internals.api.parser |
Postings from December 2000
Re: Now, to try again...
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
David Grove
Date:
December 19, 2000 09:21
Subject:
Re: Now, to try again...
Message ID:
200012191803.eBJI3Bm09112@camel.petes-place.com
Andy Dougherty <doughera@lafayette.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
>
> >
> > Andy Dougherty <doughera@lafayette.edu> wrote:
> >
> I think you misunderstand. I think it should be very easy to *use* a
> hypothetical Pythonish module. I don't expect it will be very easy to
> create it, and I don't see it as worthwhile to expend a
disproportionate
> amount of effort in that direction.
>
> In another message, you write ...
>
> > I also admit that I would, on a purely personal-bias level, prefer
not
> > to
> > cast too much support in the direction of Python, Java, C#, or ASP at
>
> which also seems to aruge for not working too too hard to make it easy
to
> write the Pythonish module.
As for how easy it is to write one, that's probably just going to come out
in development. My hope is that we can make it as straightforward as
possible for the user. I do hope to help guide it in the direction of user
laziness and hubris.
The bias expressed is one like many hold but don't express. The two
statements don't really relate, and were said in two different stages of
shock. The bias is, I suppose, one of fear. At this point I'm not sure
whether it would help or hurt to "support" the languages in their full
spec rather than just use some of their features to enhance Perl. I'll
rely on my "elders'" opinions in this area. I've seen this debate fought
in other areas, and there are valid concerns in both directions (to
swollow it up, or not to swollow it up). This isn't the place for that, so
please leave that as an explanation of my bias and not as a topic
direction.
> I think one or both of us is confused.
I was. I conceded the issue, however. It seems that what was in my head
was very close to what we'll likely come up with, but I just hadn't
envisioned it going so far. I also think it will be, or can be, much
easier for both us and the user than I first thought.
> > I don't
> > see these little languages as Perl features, but as programmer
features,
>
> I don't see Python or Java as a "little language". Perhaps that's the
> source of the confusion. I see a whole spectrum of "languages" one
might
> want to feed to perl6. Easy ones ("little languages") should be easy.
> Hard ones (e.g. Tcl, Python) should be possible. In-between-ones
should
> be in between.
Correct. We're riding the same frequency wave at this point, I think.
Thanks for your help in correcting my misconceptions of our directions.
p
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next