develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from October 2012

Re: What happened to the whole "small core" idea?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Robert Sedlacek
October 27, 2012 08:24
Re: What happened to the whole "small core" idea?
Message ID:
On Sat, 2012-10-27 at 01:41 +1100, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
> Let's focus on sub signatures for a bit. I've read every thread about 
> them. Peter Martin's work kicks ass. The speedups are tangible which is 
> even more awesome. Yet the whole proposal seems to be set up “It either 
> happens in core or it doesn't happen at all”. Why? What prevents the 
> core from exposing the correct-level hooks, have *these* hooks unit 
> tested, and relegate the syntax extension mucking to CPAN? I do not 
> think performance is an issue – after all linked C is linked C. 
> Maintainability can't be a problem either – if anything it will be 
> awesome to have a well factored boundary that will make a performant 
> CPAN module for such extensions possible. Perhaps testing, but with 
> CPAN-wide smoking the way we do today, this *also* isn't a problem.

For me, it's because at one point I'd also like to be able to use these
features in pure-perl modules.

> Furthermore, and this is what baffles me most – I do not seem to be 
> alone in this sentiment. I am a long-time p5p observer. I do not 
> participate in p5p dev directly, and even temporarily stepped away from 
> CPAN this past year. Yet I still go to conferences and meet people, some 
> of them prominent p5p figures. An overwhelming majority of these folks 
> flat out stated in a private conversation that adding more syntax to 
> Perl 5 is not the way to go. Even some members of the Moose cabal have 
> agreed with me in private that having compile-time acting signatures 
> prototyped on CPAN first is the sane way forward. Yet when something of 
> such magnitude is brought up to the list, the general response from 
> these *same* folks is <crickets>. Furthermore if one reads more into the 
> threads gems like the following pop up:

But this feature has been prototyped on CPAN in various forms.

> Perl5 just turned 18 a week ago (according to a0d0e21ea6e). It is now 
> legal to express ones love to this great dynamic language in every way 
> possible. What better time to ask where is Perl5 going and why can't it 
> stay Perl5?

I completely disagree that new features mean it isn't Perl 5 anymore. We
didn't need //, but I'm really happy it's there.

Don't get me wrong, I'd personally rather have fail-on-missing-params
and fail-on-too-many-params as default behavior, but since the current
proposal is precisely just what most CPAN prototypes have in common, I
would see no problem advertising this features for people to clean up
their code.

Robert 'phaylon' Sedlacek

Perl 5 Consultant for
Shadowcat Systems Limited -

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About