Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2000
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:22:35 -0500 dan@sidhe.org (Dan Sugalski) wrote: * At 01:01 PM 3/31/00 -0700, Joseph N. Hall wrote: * >I doubt that is really a problem for the ages, though. In the near * >future, if not now, caches will be large and/or capable enough that * >cache busting really isn't something to design against. Nevermind * >that there is one Perl and a zillion different cache architectures. * * Ick. No offense but I absolutely loathe that particular attitude. [...] * Perl itself is getting slower with each release and that's troublesome. * Machines get faster, but data volumes get larger faster. I may be unusual * in chugging through runs of 80G of data and 10-20M files at a shot, but not * *that* unusual. If it's a choice between "faster" and "more useful" in Perl, I'll come down on the side of "more useful" just about every time. That said, Perl has more speed and memory "issues" than it seems like it ought to. The huge growth in the core from 5.005 to 5.6 without any serious new fully-operational functionality is rather disappointing to me. -josephThread Previous | Thread Next