develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from July 2006

Re: Its time we set the score straight on Perl 5 and Perl 6 and debunk our own self generated FUD.

Scott Walters
July 2, 2006 17:50
Re: Its time we set the score straight on Perl 5 and Perl 6 and debunk our own self generated FUD.
Message ID:
I hope that aside didn't detract from my primary message -- that Perl 5 just
works entirely too well from a user's point of view and from a CPAN author's
point of view, and that's going to cause the no news (which happens to be
good news) effect you've noticed.  

As far as what I consider 'cleaned up', I don't have enough knowledge of the
domain to identify the ways core could be simplified to be comprehensible by
a mere mortal as myself.  I'm confused by the overloaded meanings pads put on 
fields in SVs and AVs and find myself thinking maybe I'd understand better
if SVs were somehow subclassed for the purpose.  Temps are hard to keep 
straight as far as how they should work, and the code seems to agree with that.
pp_ctl.c seems to be littered with special cases about how a block is 
exited in each op.  I wonder if these cases couldn't all be assembled somewhere
and some sort of block object had an "I'm exiting you now" method called on
it.  If courotines could be grafted onto the Perl 5, I'd be a very happy
camper indeed, and it seems like logic being scarred around too much makes
these sorts of large scare reworks even harder to do.

I should have been more clear -- it isn't even so much that core *needs* to
be cleaned up so much that, in my opinion, it's going to be *worth while* to
do any possible cleaning on it.  Pugs may eventually be rewritten into
Perl 6 and if it does, it'll run on any virtual machine that Pugs has a 
back end for, including Perl 5.  Pugs would then compile itself down to
Perl 5 and be fully self-hosted on Perl 5.  And I strongly suspect that 
people are going to want the portability, stability, and maturity of the
Perl 5 backend for most applications.  People's requirements will generally
be to run their legacy Perl 5 as-is along side Perl 6 that Joe down the
hall has taken upon himself to start writing.  Perl 5 is much better equiped
to do that than Parrot is.  If this turns out to be the case, any refactoring
work done on Perl 5 won't be wasted.

Sorry if I'm repeating past discussion.  Please tell me if this is the case.


On  0, Dave Mitchell <> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 08:31:38PM +0000, Scott Walters wrote:
> > Speaking as a CPAN author, all I can say is keep up the great work.  Oh.
> > And refactor core for me so I can jump in without getting confuzeled =)
> > 
> > Actually, this might be a good time to do that -- if Pugs and Parrot are
> > going heavy on the new big new features, that might mean less pressure for
> > new features from Perl 5 for a while, and cleaned up core is the thing
> > I'd like to see from Perl 5 more than anything else.  Especially if the
> > Pugs Perl 5 backend becomes as popular as I think it will.
> what's your definition of 'cleaned up'?
> -- 
> "Do not dabble in paradox, Edward, it puts you in danger of fortuitous
> wit." -- Lady Croom - Arcadia Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About