Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2010
* Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> [2010-12-14 21:30]:
> I dispute "critical". Useful, yes. But Perl 5 is already
> a sufficiently functional language that people have built
> half-billion dollar businesses from it. The language is already
> way more than Turing complete. Most everything proposed for
> addition is "nice to have", and there will never be complete
> consensus on what is essential to add, and what is merely nice.
But do not forget epigram 54:
Beware of the Turing tar-pit in which everything is possible
but nothing of interest is easy.
Given one of its mottoes I would in fact say Perl was born to be
the antithesis to a Turing tar-pit.
(This is not to say argue with your points. I am just making
a tangential observation that I believe important.)
> I'll add that whilst I've never felt need for this feature, it
> did seem reasonable to add it (as ${^SUB}, not __SUB__), as
> part of the core language. *Did* seem, until it was observed
> that there is still contention on *what* the right behaviour
> is.
Having caught up with the entire thread, the only contention
I’ve seen appears to be over its naming, not its functionality.
(Personally I did not like __SUB__ at first, but have come around
to it. But that is neither here nor there.)
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next