| |||||||||||||
Should be: Goodnight, Perl 6.Should be: Goodnight, Perl 6.Posted Feb 11, 2013 12:28 UTC (Mon) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)In reply to: Should be: Goodnight, Perl 6. by HelloWorld Parent article: Chromatic: Goodnight, Parrot
What practical difference does lack of subroutine signatures make? Or the fact that Perl can't break reference cycles? Who really cares? Perl 5 followed Larry Wall's philosophy of making something that works, even if it isn't "beautiful" from an abstract computer science point of view. Perl 6 is going completely in the opposite direction: All sorts of amazingly cool features that thrill language designers but result in an unusable and horribly complex impractical lumbering beast.
(Log in to post comments)
Should be: Goodnight, Perl 6. Posted Feb 11, 2013 23:29 UTC (Mon) by raiph (guest, #89283) [Link]
> What practical difference does lack of subroutine signatures make?
An example in Perl 6 is that signatures are integral to the FFI solution and the upshot is that using C libraries from Perl 6 is truly trivial. http://justrakudoit.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/zavolaj/
> Perl 5 followed Larry Wall's philosophy of making something that works, even if it isn't "beautiful" from an abstract computer science point of view. Perl 6 is going completely in the opposite direction: All sorts of amazingly cool features that thrill language designers but result in an unusable and horribly complex impractical lumbering beast.
I think you're viewing Perl 6 through the lens of dissatisfaction of trying it years ago.
Partly because the effort is pretty much directed by Larry Wall, the Perl 6 result is increasingly delivering all the practical goodness of Perl 5, plus an enormous bunch of extra *practical* goodies, combined with doing it right from a computer science point of view.
|
|||||||||||||