[30263] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 1506 Volume: 11
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Sat May 3 14:09:46 2008
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 11:09:09 -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 Sat, 3 May 2008 Volume: 11 Number: 1506
Today's topics:
Re: Lawyers prosecuters media and programmers (I need H <me@theworld.universe>
Re: Perl 6 <spamtrap@dot-app.org>
Re: Perl 6 <benkasminbullock@gmail.com>
Re: Perl 6 <rvtol+news@isolution.nl>
Re: Perl 6 <benkasminbullock@gmail.com>
Re: Perl 6 <szrRE@szromanMO.comVE>
Re: Perl 6 <sbour@niaid.nih.gov>
Rakudo (was: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure langu <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Re: Read 20 lines when pressing n for next <get@bentsys.com>
Re: Stuffing @users into $self->{'users'} <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Re: Stuffing @users into $self->{'users'} <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Who is unsetting this variable? <occitan@esperanto.org>
Re: Who is unsetting this variable? <benkasminbullock@gmail.com>
Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language? <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language? <usenet@larseighner.com>
Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language? <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language? <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 08:25:14 +0100
From: "Carl" <me@theworld.universe>
Subject: Re: Lawyers prosecuters media and programmers (I need HELP!)
Message-Id: <ALKdndHrhMLGjoHVnZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d@bt.com>
I had to do an internet search to find out what a zio-nazi is. If you want
to brand me with the same label as Moshe Dayan and Ariel Sharon, that's fine
with me, although I do not think that I should be included with two great
historical military leaders, defending their country from those who aim for
the total destruction of another country. All I have done to warrant your
attention is to ask for more info on Supreme Commander and Stardock, and ask
you if you realise that you could get in trouble for the reply you posted,
that's also me ignoring the slander and libel you have written, you really
are an idiot of the finest calibre, and worthy of the title of BIG STUPID
HEAD.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 03:19:48 -0400
From: Sherman Pendley <spamtrap@dot-app.org>
Subject: Re: Perl 6
Message-Id: <m1bq3n4zxn.fsf@dot-app.org>
Uri Guttman <uri@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:
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. :-)
sherm--
--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 07:20:43 +0000 (UTC)
From: Ben Bullock <benkasminbullock@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Perl 6
Message-Id: <fvh3ob$28b$1@ml.accsnet.ne.jp>
On Sat, 03 May 2008 06:26:18 +0000, Uri Guttman wrote:
> 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.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 13:00:18 +0200
From: "Dr.Ruud" <rvtol+news@isolution.nl>
Subject: Re: Perl 6
Message-Id: <fvhnua.1fo.1@news.isolution.nl>
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
--
Affijn, Ruud
"Gewoon is een tijger."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 12:30:24 +0000 (UTC)
From: Ben Bullock <benkasminbullock@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Perl 6
Message-Id: <fvhlt0$6cv$1@ml.accsnet.ne.jp>
On Sat, 03 May 2008 13:00:18 +0200, Dr.Ruud wrote:
> 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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STRAP
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 10:00:30 -0700
From: "szr" <szrRE@szromanMO.comVE>
Subject: Re: Perl 6
Message-Id: <fvi5ne020lt@news4.newsguy.com>
Uri Guttman wrote:
>>>>>> "BB" == Ben Bullock <benkasminbullock@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.
>
>> 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
>
> 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
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 10:17:45 -0700
From: "Stephan Bour" <sbour@niaid.nih.gov>
Subject: Re: Perl 6
Message-Id: <P61Tj.144$nl7.2@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>
Uri Guttman wrote:
} > Ben Bullock <benkasminbullock@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
}
} > 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.
}
} 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.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 16:53:13 +0200
From: "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Subject: Rakudo (was: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?)
Message-Id: <slrng1ov2p.me7.hjp-usenet2@hrunkner.hjp.at>
On 2008-05-02 13:07, Peter Scott <Peter@PSDT.com> wrote:
> 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
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 10:47:14 -0700
From: "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: Re: Read 20 lines when pressing n for next
Message-Id: <683mouF2r8t6uU1@mid.individual.net>
Uri Guttman wrote:
> Gordon Etly <get@bentsys.com> writes:
> > Uri Guttman wrote:
> > > but i don't attack your character as you have shown none. all you
> > > have done is flame about how others post here.
> >
> > With all due respect, all I am guilty of is having opinions (which
> > happens to be contrary to your own view in both cases.) If anyone
> > did
> > any "flaming", it was people like you that turned a simple point
> > into a kill-the-heretic.
> >
> > You don't agree with someone, fine. But don't make it your personal
> > vendetta.
>
> it isn't personal.
You keep making it so. Every thread I make a comment or some point on
something, instead of addressing it's merits or cons, you turn it into
your own personal holy war. You did exactly that in the thread
concerning the usage of "PERL" and you've been doing it again here.
Instead of discussing the point being made, you go the defensive, way
out into left field. You also are doing it to Ben Bullock in a thread
about Perl 6. You keep jumping into threads, and instead of making civil
conversation you keep trolling for a fight. Then you tell the other side
to shut up, and/or claim they are a troll, and all in all, ignore any
validity in the original point.
> you attacked first on my homework comment
It wasn't an attack, it was a comment. By posting, you are inviting
comments. If you cannot accept this, you should not be posting on UseNet
(or any other public message forum.)
> and not all the others?
If you bothered to actually check, my first reply was to A. Sinan Unur,
not you. Yeah, you really don't have a personal agenda here, right?...
> go away before i taunt you a further time. your mother was a
> hampster. i fart in your general direction.
"...than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
--
G.Etly
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 11:51:15 +0200
From: "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Subject: Re: Stuffing @users into $self->{'users'}
Message-Id: <slrng1odcl.me7.hjp-usenet2@hrunkner.hjp.at>
On 2008-05-01 14:44, A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid> wrote:
> Philluminati <Phillip.Ross.Taylor@gmail.com> wrote in news:661262f3-
> aea5-4734-906e-7062d77f201f@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>> my @users = ref $self->{'users'}; //same message as above
>> my @users = @$self->{'users'};
>> my @users = \$self->{'users'};
>> my @users = map $self->{'users'}; //gave 500 internal server err
>> my @users = ( $self->{'users'} ); //same as original err
>> my @users = scalar $self->{'users'};
>
> You are ignoring the fact that programming is a deterministic endeavor.
> Successful programmers are not those who throw a bazillion variations at
> a wall and see what sticks.
While I agree with that completely, I have to concede that the syntax
for dereferencing in perl is somewhat arcane. I remember reading perldoc
perlref 10+ years ago, scratching my head and wondering what the fuck
Larry was smoking. And I probably did throw a bazillion of variations at
the compiler until I finally figured out that it's really quite simple.
>> All I want to do is pull that array back into a variable. Anyone?
>
> If $x is a reference to an array, then @{ $x } dereferences it.
>
> my @users = @{ $self->{users} };
Yup. That's one of the two rules to remember. The other is to use -> to
access individual members.
hp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 12:14:14 +0200
From: "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Subject: Re: Stuffing @users into $self->{'users'}
Message-Id: <slrng1oenn.me7.hjp-usenet2@hrunkner.hjp.at>
On 2008-05-01 15:33, Philluminati <Phillip.Ross.Taylor@gmail.com> wrote:
> I already own programming perl by Larry Wall. It's sitting here on my
> desk. However it happens to be over 900 pages and the author spends
> all his time setting up jokes and "funny" lines of code rather than
> actually explain in programming terms what the hell is going on.
The "camel book" probably isn't the best book to learn perl. It is
intended as a reference, not a tutorial. The "llama book", Learning
Perl, Fourth Edition, by Randal L. Schwartz, Tom Phoenix, brian d foy,
is generally recommended for beginners. Or you can just read the
documentation that comes with perl (I learned Perl that way, although I
think I might have figured out some things faster if I had read the
O'Reilly books) or one of the gazillion other books about perl (although
Sturgeon's law applies to Perl books just as to SF novels).
As for the "funny lines of code": Fun is for me an intrinsic part of the
Perl culture. You may or may not appreciate Larry's sense of humor or
writing style, but if you don't enjoy playing with a language, Perl
probably isn't the language of your choice.
> Look I know I am going to have to read the book no matter how much of
> a frustrating read it is. However I do want to get this prototype
> running prior to my intellectual investment. I don't want to read 900
> pages when effectively the prototype I'm writing is going to say
> whether the language is feasible or not, not my willingness or
> unwillingness to learn it.
You won't know whether Perl is feasible for some (reasonably complex)
task until you know it fairly well. Hacking together a few lines of code
without understanding the language won't tell you that. If you do
succeed in writing a few lines, you still won't know if it is well
suited to more complex tasks. And when you don't succeed all you know is
that you haven't learned enough. Perl is a general purpose programming
language. You can write anything in Perl. But for some tasks, other
languages are better suited.
hp
PS: I recommend to read this: http://www.norvig.com/21-days.html
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 12:54:54 +0200
From: Daniel Pfeiffer <occitan@esperanto.org>
Subject: Who is unsetting this variable?
Message-Id: <481C447E.4020708@esperanto.org>
In makepp http://makepp.sourceforge.net/ I noticed an unexplicable (to me)
evaporation of variable values.
In Makesubs.pm we have the following closure, where $_[1] is a Makefile object
and $CC is used nowhere else:
my $CC;
sub f_CC { $CC ||=
$_[1]->expand_expression('find_program gcc egcc pgcc c89 cc' .
(::is_windows?' cl bcc32':''), $_[2]) }
In Makefile.pm expand_variable line 426 in the inner else branch will call the
above function:
for( "$self->{PACKAGE}::f_$var" ) { # Name of the function with no arguments?
# Localizes $_; causes very weird errors if $_ is messed up.
my $orig = $_;
tr/-/_/; # Convert - to _ so it's more perl friendly.
s/\./_dot_/g;
$_ = *{$_}{CODE} || *{$orig}{CODE};
if( defined ) { # Defined in the makefile?
# if( $_ = defined &$_ ? \&$_ : defined &$orig && \&$orig ) { # same...
my $tmp = !$::environment_override && $self->{ENVIRONMENT}{$var};
if( $tmp && $_ == *{"Makesubs::f_$var"}{CODE} ) {
$result = $tmp;
} else {
local $::makefile = $self; # Pass the function a reference to the makefile.
$result = &$_( '', $self, $makefile_line ) and
$reexpand = 0; # It was a := variable.
print "$var:$result\n"; # this line added for debugging
}
}
}
Here $self->{PACKAGE} eq 'makefile_000', $var eq 'CC' and Makesubs::f_CC has
been imported into this package. Now, each time the makefile evaluates $(CC)
the function f_CC gets called.
At first I thought it might be a closure bug. But no matter whether I make
$CC a my or an our variable or a member of $_[1] the value toggles to and fro
between '' (in debugger is undef?) and 'gcc' (as found on my machine).
Calling Makesubs::f_CC or makefile_000::f_CC directly does not show this
behaviour. What is going on here???
A trivial makefile for watching this is:
x := $(CC) $(CC) $(CC)
DB<2> w $CC
DB<3> c
Watchpoint 0: $CC changed:
old value: ''
new value: 'gcc'
Makesubs::f_CC(/home/pfeiffer/makepp/cvs/Makesubs.pm:2066):
2066: sub f_CC { $CC ||=
2067: $_[1]->expand_expression('find_program gcc egcc pgcc c89 cc' .
(::is_windows?' cl bcc32':''), $_[2]) }
DB<3> c
Watchpoint 0: $CC changed:
old value: 'gcc'
new value: ''
Makefile::expand_variable(/home/pfeiffer/makepp/cvs/Makefile.pm:430):
430: print "$var:$result\n"; # this line added for debugging
coralament / best Grötens / liebe Grüße / best regards / elkorajn salutojn
Daniel Pfeiffer
--
lerne / learn / apprends / lär dig / ucz się Esperanto:
http://lernu.net / http://ikurso.net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 13:34:14 +0000 (UTC)
From: Ben Bullock <benkasminbullock@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Who is unsetting this variable?
Message-Id: <fvhpkm$6cv$2@ml.accsnet.ne.jp>
On Sat, 03 May 2008 12:54:54 +0200, Daniel Pfeiffer wrote:
> In makepp http://makepp.sourceforge.net/ I noticed an unexplicable (to
> me) evaporation of variable values.
> DB<2> w $CC
w $Makesubs::CC
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 10:27:35 +0200
From: "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Subject: Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
Message-Id: <slrng1o8fo.me7.hjp-usenet2@hrunkner.hjp.at>
On 2008-05-01 17:56, xhoster@gmail.com <xhoster@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote:
>> In our last episode, <20080501111811.498$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?
>> >> >>
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
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 04:41:11 -0500
From: Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com>
Subject: Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
Message-Id: <slrng1ocle.bhi.usenet@debranded.larseighner.com>
In our last episode, <slrng1o8fo.me7.hjp-usenet2@hrunkner.hjp.at>, the
lovely and talented Peter J. Holzer broadcast on comp.lang.perl.misc:
> On 2008-05-01 17:56, xhoster@gmail.com <xhoster@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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?
>>> >> >>
> 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)
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/> usenet@larseighner.com
Countdown: 262 days to go.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 17:12:10 +0200
From: "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Subject: Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
Message-Id: <slrng1p06a.me7.hjp-usenet2@hrunkner.hjp.at>
On 2008-05-03 09:41, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote:
> In our last episode, <slrng1o8fo.me7.hjp-usenet2@hrunkner.hjp.at>, the
> lovely and talented Peter J. Holzer broadcast on comp.lang.perl.misc:
>
>> On 2008-05-01 17:56, xhoster@gmail.com <xhoster@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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:
>>>> >> 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
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 17:30:04 +0200
From: "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Subject: Re: Will Perl 6 be usable as a procedure language?
Message-Id: <slrng1p17s.ocr.hjp-usenet2@hrunkner.hjp.at>
On 2008-05-01 21:13, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote:
> In our last episode,
><bb9e4723-a2d9-4517-bdfb-aa73715281ac@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.
"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
------------------------------
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 1506
***************************************
