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

Re: Why we're here

Tim Bunce
July 25, 2000 02:40
Re: Why we're here
Message ID:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 10:53:47PM -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
> Nathan Torkington wrote:
> > writes:
> > > Let's focus on making perl, as possible Perl, better. Make it faster,
> > > more maintainable. But don't change the language into something that
> > > isn't Perl.
> > Fears about great changes to Perl are, imho, unfounded.  The biggest
> > changes will be made on the insides.  The language itself will be
> > different, but not to the point of removing dollar signs and replacing
> > punctuation operators with uppercase keywords:
> Argh. I'm conflicted here. I like Perl the way it is, but obviously I'd
> like it to be "better". Making things better often breaks them and the
> more I like something the less I can tell when I'm breaking it. I'm
> perfectly happy to have Larry decide what Perl is. That seems to be the
> consensus and I'm glad we're not debating it.
> *However*, there are two points to Perl that are most important for me
> and they're both in conflict with the ideas of "don't change Perl" and "let
> Larry guide us".
> 1. The Perl community. Creative, nurturing, proud, intelligent, diverse,
>    funny, generous, etc. This is the main reason I use Perl -- I want to
>    be a part of the community. There are more role models than you can
>    shake a stick at. (And because of the anti-role models I'm sure they've
>    all had sticks shaken at them... ;)
>    This influence wants me to be able to dream, explore, invent and share
>    the experience with the community. Perl, the implementation, should make
>    playing with Perl, the language, enjoyable. The Author of the story has
>    created the Perl universe, but I read that as the *beginning* of the
>    story.
> 2. The Perl philosophy. There's more than one way to do it. I'm not talking
>    syntax here, I'm talking semantics, patterns and idioms. Perl easily
>    expresses procedural, functional, object-oriented and symbolic styles.
>    State machines, lambda functions, closures, exceptions, iterators, ...
>    I've rarely read about algorithms that would be hard to implement in
>    Perl. Maybe I'm not well-read, but it still seems Perl is doing
>    something differently and much better than most languages.
>    This influence drives me to change the tool to better fit the problem.
>    When I'm in problem solving mode, I want the best tool and often that's
>    Perl with a little bit of domain-specific sugar thrown in. I think it
>    would be fabulous to be able to stretch Perl even further.
> I don't want to admit that I want to change Perl. Am I waxing pathetic here
> or do others feel the same?

One of Larry's goals for Perl5 was to allow the core language to stabilize
by implementing a powerful extension mechanism.

That's worked amazingly well, all things considered.

I am quite sure that Larry will use the leasons learned to carry that
concept further forward in Perl6.

Tim. Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About