develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from August 2009

Re: p5 on the JVM

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
James Laver
Date:
August 21, 2009 04:36
Subject:
Re: p5 on the JVM
Message ID:
5d6a0dd50908210436u44f890bax204912e75594b7bd@mail.gmail.com
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Piotr
Roszatycki<piotr.roszatycki@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/8/21 Ben Evans <benjamin.john.evans@googlemail.com>:
>> The problem with Perl is parsing.
>
> Why don't you create another dialect of Perl which would be very
> similar to original implementation but without some limits of original
> parser? Why did you try to make Perl on JVM 100% compatible with
> current implementation? I mean you could remove i.e. indirect notation
> or some strange syntax missteps without pain.

Because a simplified perl that didn't have these problems just
wouldn't be perl. We had a good discussion about it and it seemed that
it would have to be radically different.

And then starts the bikeshedding. I'd want to replace map and grep
with 'proper' functional equivalents, whereas Ben might not have
wanted to break as much existing code. Is mauve or lilac more in vogue
at this time of year? etc. etc.

On a sidenote, I've started the 'Foose' (temporary name in honour of
Moose) project with Hakim Cassimally to bring more functional bits to
perl. First thing Hakim did was provide proper functional map and grep
replacements (that take functions, not blocks). In pure perl, no less.

> There is another dialect of Perl: Kurila, but I think this project
> went too far with changes. Probably if the Perl on JVM would be close
> to original Perl5, I would use it and make my modules compatible with
> it.

Kurila is a lie. HTH.

--James

Thread Previous | Thread Next


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