[30257] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 1500 Volume: 11
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Thu May 1 14:19:25 2008
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 11:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Thu, 1 May 2008 Volume: 11 Number: 1500
Today's topics:
Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language? <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language? <simon.chao@fmr.com>
Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language? xhoster@gmail.com
Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language? <usenet@larseighner.com>
Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language? <usenet@larseighner.com>
Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language? <simon.chao@fmr.com>
Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language? xhoster@gmail.com
Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language? <simon.chao@fmr.com>
Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language? xhoster@gmail.com
Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language? xhoster@gmail.com
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 14:45:42 +0100
From: bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
Subject: Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
Message-Id: <nbedne0lJ9cbVITVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet>
Peter Scott 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.
Oh. That's a bit of a surprise.
BugBear
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 07:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: nolo contendere <simon.chao@fmr.com>
Subject: Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
Message-Id: <493944b4-1733-4c1b-89ef-6f24b7cc8bc4@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
On May 1, 9:45=A0am, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
> Peter Scott 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? =A0It isn't, and it won't be.
>
> Oh. That's a bit of a surprise.
>
I agree, although I see the benefits. It will slow adoption though.
------------------------------
Date: 01 May 2008 15:18:10 GMT
From: xhoster@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
Message-Id: <20080501111811.498$rD@newsreader.com>
Peter Scott <Peter@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?
--
-------------------- 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.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 11:20:53 -0500
From: Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com>
Subject: Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
Message-Id: <slrng1jrat.2m4m.usenet@debranded.larseighner.com>
In our last episode, <pan.2008.05.01.12.37.12.389478@PSDT.com>, the lovely
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/> usenet@larseighner.com
Countdown: 263 days to go.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 11:27:16 -0500
From: Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com>
Subject: Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
Message-Id: <slrng1jrms.2m4m.usenet@debranded.larseighner.com>
In our last episode, <20080501111811.498$rD@newsreader.com>, the lovely and
talented xhoster@gmail.com broadcast on comp.lang.perl.misc:
> Peter Scott <Peter@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/> usenet@larseighner.com
Countdown: 263 days to go.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: nolo contendere <simon.chao@fmr.com>
Subject: Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
Message-Id: <38e3dac1-c500-44cb-8ec9-ceb2b186b73f@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.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'?
------------------------------
Date: 01 May 2008 17:40:39 GMT
From: xhoster@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
Message-Id: <20080501134041.575$BO@newsreader.com>
nolo contendere <simon.chao@fmr.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 1:12=A0am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
> > Will perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
> >
>
> What _exactly_ do you mean by 'procedure language'?
I think he means "Not object oriented"
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked
advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate
this fact.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: nolo contendere <simon.chao@fmr.com>
Subject: Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
Message-Id: <bb9e4723-a2d9-4517-bdfb-aa73715281ac@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
On May 1, 1:40=A0pm, xhos...@gmail.com wrote:
> nolo contendere <simon.c...@fmr.com> wrote:
> > On May 1, 1:12=3DA0am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
> > > Will perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
>
> > What _exactly_ do you mean by 'procedure language'?
>
> I think he means "Not object oriented"
But can't one author code either procedurally or OO in the same
language?
(This may not be the authority, but):
"The most popular programming languages usually have both OOP and
procedural aspects."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_programming#Comparison_with_object-o=
riented_programming
Perhaps the most popular language used for OOP is Java, but you can
write procedural code in Java if you wanted, correct? I was hoping
that the OP could list the exact criteria he was using for determining
the answer to his question.
------------------------------
Date: 01 May 2008 17:56:22 GMT
From: xhoster@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
Message-Id: <20080501135624.204$SB@newsreader.com>
Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote:
> In our last episode, <20080501111811.498$rD@newsreader.com>, the lovely
> and talented xhoster@gmail.com broadcast on comp.lang.perl.misc:
>
> > Peter Scott <Peter@PSDT.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 01 May 2008 12:00:32 +0100, bugbear wrote:
> >>
> >> > Lars Eighner wrote:
> >> >> Will perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > They'll be hellish backwards compatibility issues
> >> > if it isn't!
> >>
> >> Backwards compatibility with what?
> >>
> >> Are you thinking that Perl 6 is intended to be backwards compatible
> >> with Perl 5? It isn't, and it won't be. The runtime will be able to
> >> use Perl 5 modules, but that's a different story.
>
> > What is the difference between that, and being backwards compatible?
>
> Backwards compatibility would imply that old scripts would still run
> (sort of). Evidently what's being promised here is that (some?)
> libraries will still sort of work.
I'm still not seeing the difference. It is trivially easy to
turn a script into a module. rename from .pl to .pm and add
an 1; to the end. Even the last step is optional if you don't mind
a spurious error message at the end of execution.
mv foo.pl foo.pm
perl -le 'use foo'
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked
advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate
this fact.
------------------------------
Date: 01 May 2008 18:00:02 GMT
From: xhoster@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
Message-Id: <20080501140003.960$gp@newsreader.com>
nolo contendere <simon.chao@fmr.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 1:40=A0pm, xhos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > nolo contendere <simon.c...@fmr.com> wrote:
> > > On May 1, 1:12=3DA0am, 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_objec
> t-o= riented_programming
>
> 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.
Xho
--
-------------------- 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.
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 2001 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Users-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
#The Perl-Users Digest is a retransmission of the USENET newsgroup
#comp.lang.perl.misc. For subscription or unsubscription requests, send
#the single line:
#
# subscribe perl-users
#or:
# unsubscribe perl-users
#
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
NOTE: due to the current flood of worm email banging on ruby, the smtp
server on ruby has been shut off until further notice.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
#To request back copies (available for a week or so), send your request
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu with the command "send perl-users x.y",
#where x is the volume number and y is the issue number.
#For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
#perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
#sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
#answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V11 Issue 1500
***************************************
