Front page | perl.perl6.porters |
Postings from June 2000
Re: ANSI Perl: NO F* WAY !!!
Thread Previous
From:
Michael G Schwern
Date:
June 10, 2000 18:38
Subject:
Re: ANSI Perl: NO F* WAY !!!
Message ID:
20000610213824.A6680@athens.aocn.com
On a counter-note, I was kinda anti-ANSI, too. But a late night
discussion on #perl has me swayed a little bit, Abigail and mjd scored
some good points for standardization:
Schwern: Hmmm, Mr. Rosler misses the point of standardization.
yrlnry: schwern: I somehow doubt that.
Schwern: Well, why "officially" standardize something that's not fractured?
pudge_: Schwern, so businesses can rely on it.
Schwern: Yay. They already can rely on it.
pudge_: no, not on perl
pudge_: on a standard
Schwern: Perl people are absolutely crazy about backwards compatibility.
pudge_: i am not saying i agree
pudge_: you asked why standardize, and i told you :)
pudge_: actually
Schwern: ...but that's his argument. Yeah.
yrlnry: crazy in the sense of ignoring it in an irrational and self-destructive way, perhaps.
pudge_: one could make an argument that perl IS fractured
Schwern: I'm just afraid it'll get frozen in time like C.
pudge_: you havce 5.004 over there, 5.005 here, and 5.6 out there
Schwern: Pudge: Standardization won't help that anymore than it helped C++
pudge_: Schwern, my hope is that Perl WILL get frozen in time.
Schwern: There's still tons of non-ANSI C++ compilers out there.
pudge_: when it is done.
fimmtiu: C++'s problems are not a result of standardization.
fimmtiu: C++'s problems are because it's a poorly designed language.
Schwern: fimmtiu: Not what I'm saying.
pudge_: C++ has only one problem.
pudge_: it's not perl!
**later**
Abigail: What do people think of the Larry Rosler interview?
Schwern: Abigail: His arguments for turning Perl into hundreds of pages of unreadable documents are less than convincing.
PerlJam: Abigail: I'm composing email to Larry Rosler about it right now. I think he's clued but misguided.
Schwern: Abigail: THen again... we already have man pages...
PerlJam: What Schwern just said.
Abigail: I didn't see him talking about "unreadable" documentation.
Schwern: Abigail: Ever read an ANSI spec?
Abigail: Schwern: yes.
PerlJam: Abigail: What do *you* think about it?
Schwern: Abigail: Not the clearest things in the universe.
Schwern: And has a language as complicated as Perl ever been spec'd?
PerlJam: Schwern: C++
yrlnry: schwern: Have you read the ANSI C standard? I don't think it's unreadable.
Schwern: C++ has nothing on Perl.
Schwern: mjd: My copies in storage, I've seen a few gems.
quidity: If we had a standards committee, would we have to adopt strict definitions of all the Larry Wall quotes as well?
Abigail: I think that it would benefit Perl in the long run to standardize it. However, it should be a standard that allows things that are "deprecated" to be removed in future versions.
uri: mjd: ever read the pl/1 specs? total gibberish.
yrlnry: uri: No, I haven't had that pleasure.
uri: mjd: the pleasure^Wpain was all mine
Abigail: One of the problems now is that certain things aren't well defined, and if behaviour chances from version to version, a bugreport can be dismissed as "well, it was never well defined, so it isn't a bug".
Schwern: I'm more afraid of calcification of Perl than anything else.
uri: mjd: i wrote massive runtime library stuff from that spec. i still have the scars
dngor: That's what Ilya means when he says Perl is nondeterministic, right?
yrlnry: Another problem is that the current development team doesn't seem to particularly care about backward compatibility anyway.
Abigail: For instance, what should the following print: sub AUTOLOAD {print $AUTOLOAD} *foo = *bar; foo (); ? (It prints different things in 5.005 and 5.6 for instance).
Schwern: mjd: Odd, I've always found p5p to be absolutely rabid about that.
yrlnry: schwern: You haven't been paying very much attention then.
Schwern: Not since 5.6.0 came out.
yrlnry: Not since about three yeasr ago, it appears.
yrlnry: Try reading perldelta sometime.
clintp: The theme is "Well, we can break backward compatability, as long as it's not something important that anyone in p5p uses."
yrlnry: Or if Larry decides that the new way is more useful.
clintp: For varying degrees of "important"
Abigail: "Important" often meaning "I don't like the new way of doing it, so the old way is important".
Schwern: Here's the question. Would an ANSI spec chisel Perl in stone? Would there be no more new features because of it (or effectively because they weren't in the standard)?
yrlnry: Well, that didn't happen to C. Why would it happen to Perl?
PerlJam: Schwern: in as much as C is "chiselled in stone"
Schwern: C relies more on its libraries than its core language.
uri: schwern: i think the issue is less about features than clarifying what perl is supposed to do in odd places. it is too empirical sometimes.
PerlJam: Perl needs to be redesigned from the ground up (again)
*** mandrake- (mandrake@nat-su-33.valinux.com) has joined channel #perl
Abigail: Having a Perl standard means that other people could write compatible Perl compilers/interpreters.
mandrake-: huh
Schwern: I'd consider C to be (arguably) "complete"
yrlnry: Schwern: Regardless of what you think, the new standard is standardizing features that have been introduced after 1989.
Schwern: mjd: What new standard?
PerlJam: uri: ah
yrlnry: schwern: There is a new ANSI C standard in development.
Abigail: C9x
Schwern: There's a new ANSI C standard? I had no idea.
Schwern: of course, this will take another decade to be widely adopted...
yrlnry: That makes like five things you have cirticized and argued about in the last twelve hours that you had no idea about.
Schwern: mjd: That's why I have you here, dear.
PerlJam: Schwern: Have you seen GNU C lately?
Abigail: Schwern: there are a hell of a lot more C compilers and run time environments out there then there are Perl compilers.
Abigail: (Perl compiler being perl, not perlcc).
--
Michael G Schwern http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ schwern@pobox.com
<GuRuThuG> make a channel called Perl, and infest it with joking and
fun....it doesnt make alot of sense.
Thread Previous