develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from October 2001

Re: The perl6 quandry

Thread Next
From:
Abigail
Date:
October 31, 2001 09:47
Subject:
Re: The perl6 quandry
Message ID:
20011031094729.A27629@ucan.foad.org
Dave Goehrig wrote:

> It is exactly because of those words and this fear of change that people
> fear perl has stagnated.


That is a strawman argument. Just because someone opposes a change
doesn't mean that person is against progress, and that not accepting
the change means Perl stagnates.

You know, some proposed changes should be rejected for the sole
reason they are bad. For some reason of "bad". Pseudo hashes are
out. Does that mean Perl stagnates? Does that mean the people who
feat change have won? No. Pseudo hashes were bad. Pseudo hashes
were bad because they didn't fix a problem. They only fixed a
derivate problem. The real problem is Perl's minimal OO support.
Which caused people to use hashes to simulate more than one instance
variable per object. Which was thought to be slow. Hence a kludge
to speed up hashes.

And I can't see "read only hashes" to be in a different category.
Perl doesn't have structs. Perl doesn't have good OO support. And
hashes are a poor substitute. Hence the proposal of another kludge.

That makes the proposal "bad", IMO. It doesn't address the real issue.



Abigail

Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About