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

Re: perl 6 requirements

Nathan Torkington
July 31, 2000 20:49
Re: perl 6 requirements
Message ID:
Simon Cozens writes:
> This is why we need people what Perl *is* to get on the language list
> and fight the incoming. Perl 6 is meant to be the next version of Perl,
> not the bastard child of Python and Java.

I'm in 100% agreement.  But don't forget that Larry is the filter for
these suggestions.

We're brainstorming, and one of the key elements in brainstorming is
that judgement be delayed.  If you get too caught up in "that's a
lousy idea!" and so on, then you either scare off people with good
ideas but no confidence, and/or you waste far too much time going back
with "it's bad!" "no it's not!" "yes it is!".

So Larry is doing most of the evaluation for us.  He's the one who
gave us the good things in the Perl language we have now.  He'll be
the one vetoing the ridiculous ideas.

> > There's a lot of reason why this is all happening now, but one isn't
> > allowed to discuss such.  Sorry.
> OK, now I'm scared. What's up, Tom? Private email is fine.

Heh, that scared me too.  I asked Tom about it, and he said
(paraphrasing) that the forces of academic language design ("let's
make Perl another C++!") think it's open season on Perl, to the point
of turning it into a monster.

Well, in some ways it is open season.  This is brainstorming, and the
people who would want Perl to be a bastard Python/Java hybrid are free
to submit their own RFCs.  But they also have to realize that Larry is
deciding what flies and what falls, and this means that while they may
want something, it won't be in perl6.  Larry's single vision for Perl
will be informed by everyone's wants and needs, but it'll still be his
single vision.

Make sense?

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