Larry Wall on the Perl Apocalypse 121
raelity writes "Larry Wall provides some insight into the design of Perl 6 on www.perl.com. "People get scared when they hear the word Apocalypse, but here I mean it in the good sense: a Revealing. An Apocalypse is supposed to reveal good news to good people. (And if it also happens to reveal bad news to bad people, so be it. Just don't be bad.) What I will be revealing in these columns will be the design of Perl 6. Or more accurately, the beginnings of that design, since the design process will certainly continue after I've had my initial say in the matter." " This is a really interesting article and worth reading if you're at all into Perl. Full of Wallisms, entertaining and insightful.
we just need a pragma (Score:1)
"pragma shutthefuckup", to eradicate those annoyingly mandatory warnings. ;-) I seem to recall that one only needed "use namespace std;" if you wanted to use the STL libraries in C++ btw.
Re:A question for Larry (Score:2)
Cool. .net on steroids. (Score:3)
Hey, that's cool. It does what Microsoft .net does, but better. At least it might.
One of the major ideas of .net is not SOAP (dunno why MS marketing makes such a hype about that), it's that you can write code in one language and use it in another because all languages use the same framework. So you can write an object in C# and use it (even subclass it) in another .net-enabled language. In .net, data types and class libraries aren't part of a programming language, only syntax and concepts are. Actually the framework is quite powerful, it can even be used for functional programming languages etc. (the downside is that only a limited subset will become a standard). That's Java, but better, if Microsoft gets things right.
How's that related to perl?
Hmmmm. Now what's that? If the semantic model is powerful enough (i.e. provides enough support to implement different programming language concepts on top of it), that's .net, but better.
I was already worried that a large part of the open source community would ignore .net, but it seems that they're about to accidentally develop an alternative that's even better. I seriously hope the Perl developers realize this possibility :-)
Its been posted before... (Score:1)
...and it will be posted again.
http://detonate.net/matrixse/?page=18 [detonate.net]
Bottom two frames.
--
Re:It Could Have Been Worse... (Score:2)
And with the language changing, maybe we can get away from reference counting, and then there won't be any need for the C++ features that led me down that path in the first place.
PS: There are no 't's in my name.
Re:What!!! (Score:1)
I mean, come on. I knew it was a joke as soon as I read the stuff on the front page.
"The power of Perl and the sanity of Python."
WHAT sanity? If I ever need to obey the line breaks and whitespace rules of Python when writing Perl code, you'll soon find me at the nearest asylum... =)
(Not intended as a flame bait. Both are good languages. =)
Re:Wow... (Score:2)
And I imagine that once you get up to the level of project where you need to write your own modules, you probably would be using strict and -w anyway, for sanity sake if nothing else.
It Could Have Been Worse... (Score:2)
Think of the disaster that would have been.
"What do you mean, Perl will no longer install on my Solaris box? I don't have space for C++ as well as C. ARGH!"
C++ is still not protable across platforms in any sort of reasonable sense. It would have been nice if it was.
Luckly Chip got talked out of it. (Probably with a big stick.)
Re:Wow... (Score:1)
Add a garbage collector to C++ and you'll never need to delete. You may think Perl does the same, but if you introduce a circular reference...oh dear, there's a leak. (I know Perl 6 promises to fix this though.)
Re:Wow... (Score:2)
Perl was designed to mirror human languages, not computer languages. (C++ may not have been designed in this way, but it certainly has evolved in a very similar direction.) You're not expected to completely understand the language, you're expected to quickly learn a fairly small working set of features, then slowly grow that knowledge as you grow in the language. Like english, or any other human language, both you and the language constantly grow to handle new problems and solutions. This is part of the reason Perl and C++ are so popular, they're living languages with practical goals. They don't force certain designs and strategies on you, they try to let you work with them as you will.
Re:Um. Perl6 knows that it is perl 6 because... (Score:1)
perl 6.0
Since when has readability been a priority for Perl?
Re:Cool. .net on steroids. (Score:2)
Intermediate Language (IL) is what provides the COM-like capabilities to extend classes from one language to another. The two are very distinct. IL does not require a roundtrip conversion to XML. IL is more analogous to Java Bytecodes, except that there will be multiple languages mapped to IL. IL will require "managed" subsets of languages like Visual Basic, Visual C++, and Perl.
As for this comment:
I believe you have this 180 degrees backwards. The idea for the semantic model isn't so that other languages can be mapped to Perl. It's so that Perl can be mapped to other languages (namely, Java Bytecodes and .NET's IL). I'm not really sure what the benefit would be of mapping other languages to Perl, when so much effort is being placed on optimizing the runtime environments for Java and .NET. I think Larry's got the right idea.
Re:Cool. .net on steroids. (Score:2)
condradictions... (Score:1)
The article was great if you are a Camel lover but some of us aren't (I use it for web stuff, but I am not Perl junkie
I am glad to see Perl continuing development, but I still think that Perl/Parrot would have been best
Re:It isn't? (Score:4)
It's my belief that I should quack like a duck while juggling bowling balls while completely naked, in the middle of Times Square.
That's funny. It might be my belief, but it's still funny. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I also think it's funny to take "apocalypse," which is commonly defined as the end of the world, all living things die, etc., etc., and redefine it to be a good thing. In the strict sense, Larry Wall is right. Merriam-Webster says:
apocalypse
Etymology: Middle English, revelation, Revelation, from Late Latin apocalypsis, from Greek apokalypsis, from apokalyptein to uncover, from apo- + kalyptein to cover -- more at HELL
Date: 13th century
1a: one of the Jewish and Christian writings of 200 B.C. to A.D. 150 marked by pseudonymity, symbolic imagery, and the expectation of an imminent cosmic cataclysm in which God destroys the ruling powers of evil and raises the righteous to life in a messianic kingdom b capitalized: REVELATION 3
2a: something viewed as a prophetic revelation b: ARMAGEDDON
But I think it's funny to take the opportunity to take what everybody thinks of as a bad thing and turn it into a good thing, in the Christian definition. That's the Christian thing to do, I guess, is recruit more Christians. Larry Wall took advantage of an unusual opportunity to do so, and I think it's funny.
-Waldo
Re:A few bad apples. (Score:1)
Re:Wow... (Score:2)
Oh please. You don't have to use the warnings or strict. Most one-liners don't. You can still express conditionals and looping in at least a half-dozen different ways. You practically have to use strict in CPAN modules (though there's no hard requirement) because it's widely distributed code that could choke if someone did use strict and you code didn't conform.
This is nothing like Python, a language that has never heard of a pretty-printer, and thus hardwires one into the language definition itself.
--
Re:Wow... (Score:3)
MUCH cleaner than moc.
--
Re:Perl is scary. (Score:2)
Re:Wow... (Score:2)
Re:Wow... (Score:3)
All in all, this first introduction to LW's ideas for perl6 sounds pretty good. I'm looking forward to more details about what he plans to do with references. Blurring the difference between an array and an arrayref, as he proposes, seems like it could be either the biggest fuckup, or the biggest improvement to the perl language. I can't wait to read the proposed new semantics and see how it's going to work.
This probably goes together with giving prototypes and typed arguments to functions and methods; I wonder if perl6 is going to need an 'apply' function, to pass a list of arguments to a function (as opposed to passing the list as a single argument), like Python does. As a perl programmer, at first it sounds bad to me, but I could possibly be convinced that it's worth it.
Finally, I'm a bit skeptical about the idea of compiling perl into jvm or C#/IL. Despite all claims to the contrary, I don't see these bytecodes being generic enough to implement all of perl's functions (including its amazingly extended regexp engine) with reasonable efficiency. The OO side (integrating objects and mapping methods and properties) isn't really the problem, but I just don't see a JVM-compiled perl module using C-based extensions from CPAN, and I don't see all CPAN modules giving up C integration either. All in all, I think the perl interpreter should remain C, with a good C-based extension model (more like SWIG, and losing the "XS" obfuscated lossage), and work together with the JVM and IL interpreters, supplementing them at the C level to run perl code.
Re:Great! (Score:1)
Re:Um. Perl6 knows that it is perl 6 because... (Score:1)
perl 6.0
I guess you can still do a
require 6.0;
if that's what you're after. Require and version numbers have worked for quite some time, I think.
Re:Um. Perl6 knows that it is perl 6 because... (Score:1)
You got the command wrong. It's
Re:It isn't? (Score:2)
I'm not a xtian, I don't play one on TV..I just felt it necessary to point this out -- it *isn't* a bad thing (they way they wrote it)
A question for Larry (Score:1)
Larry,
How do you feel about having me as a son in law? I know that having a troll in the family can be a bit traumatic, and I'd like to know upfront if this will cause any problems. I'd like to work through them before the wedding, so that everything can go smoothly.
I know that you're a little disturbed by Heidi's recent spate of trolling here on
You are probably also thinking that maybe your daughter can do better than a shiftless layabout who got fired from AtomFilms.com for sexual harassment, but c'mon. Think about it. Look at my flowing, golden mane, my high cheekbones, my chiseled jaw and my piercing eyes. Could any young woman possibly do any better? If you're still not convinced, you can look at my broad shoulders, barrel chest, washboard stomach and manly bearing. Now you can go have a cold shower, you probably need it.
Later,
--Shoeboy
Re:Um. Perl6 knows that it is perl 6 because... (Score:1)
No, then you grab perl-6.0-i386.rpm and rpm -U it... problem solved
Re:Um. Perl6 knows that it is perl 6 because... (Score:1)
Language design is a trade-off. He's trying to avoid instanly breaking 90% of the one-lines out there, and keep the freedom the Perl is famous for, while moving on.
As he himself states, forcing folks to "use perl 5" would break everything. Settling for "use perl 6" (and, understand that there will be ways to get around this -- note his comments about "use policy") lets us get on with the concept of coding, and not with the concept of re-coding. Going to be hard enough to re-write all these modules...
----Woodrow
Wow... (Score:3)
Perhaps we will have to evolve super-intelligent Khan-like coder clones in the future, using nanotech, Beowulf clusters, and in-dash Atari 2600 emulators.
use module vs use Perl 6 (Score:1)
I know this isn't really any different than requiring a particular version of a library, but it just seems ugly to me. Still, very much looking forward to reading the rest of the Revelations of Larry.
--
Dunx
Re:A question for Larry (Score:1)
Re:Wow... (Score:2)
http://search.cpan.org/search?dist=WeakRef [cpan.org]
Re:Wow... (Score:5)
Every time I go into a bookstore to read about C++ (every 4-6 months or so) I find out about more and more "features" that were added since I learned the language in 1995 or so. Stuff like 3 different versions of new and the namespaces.
IMO C++ has grown from being a useful extension of C to becoming a massive, horrible mess with too many features. Lots of people I know and work with talk about C++ in terms of being hard to learn and use well because it is extremely intricate. This is a good thing?
I'm disturbed by some of the more recent proposals for C++. Whitespace overloading?!? ho are we kidding?
I'm just glad that other people find solace from the insanity of C++ in Perl. Sometimes its refreshing to be able to choose your own way to do things, and to know that other people like you just want the damn program to work, with a minimum of futzing with things vaguely related to the problem you are solving (i.e., memory management ala C++ -- just how to exceptions and delete interact in a class hierarchy?) Who cares - every app I have written in the past 2 years has not needed to worry about these sorts of vaguely related things - why FORCE me to? Preaching the "paradogma" (great word Larry
There are certainly a number of cases when you NEED to care about those mundane, tedious details. Real-time programming and other systems level work are good examples.
I guess all I am saying is, thank you Larry, for freeing programmers like me from the tedium of malloc and free, sizeof and screwy arrays. You have added 20 years onto my lifespace, at least.
The Perfect Number (Score:2)
Larry, I think number theorists would crack that, contrary to general belief, the number 6 is one of those most significant and rarest of numbers belong to the perfect number category. Those number have their divisors added up to themselves (6=1+2+3). The other perfect number is 28 (28=1+2+4+7+14). Perhaps someone will be able to point out the others.
But whatever the perfect number, I am sure that Perl 7 will be more pearly than Perl 6
Re:Apocolypse (Score:1)
Armageddon (the field of Meddigo, site of an especially bloody historical battle) is the location of the final battle. Apocalypse is synonymous with revelation, e.g. Revelation of John == Apocalypse of John in the Bible.
Re:condradictions... (Score:3)
I think you may have read it wrong. He was simply stating the way that perl6 modules would be declared is different than perl5 modules.
Nothing was added, just changed.
The quote follows:
A closely related question is how Perl is going to recognize when it has accidentally been fed Perl 5 code rather than Perl 6 code. It would be rather bad to suddenly give working code a brand new set of semantics. The answer, I believe, is that it has to be impossible by definition to accidentally feed Perl 5 code to Perl 6. That is, Perl 6 must assume it is being fed Perl 5 code until it knows otherwise. And that implies that we must have some declaration that unambiguously declares the code to be Perl 6.
Now, there are right ways to do this, and wrong ways. I was peeved by the approach taken by DEC when they upgraded BASIC/PLUS to handle long variable names. Their solution was to require every program using long variable names to use the command EXTEND at the top. So henceforth and forevermore, every BASIC/PLUS program had EXTEND at the top of it. I don't know whether to call it Bad or Ugly, but it certainly wasn't Good.
A better approach is to modify something that would have to be there anyway. If you go out to CPAN and look at every single module out there, what do you see at the top? Answer: a ``package'' declaration. So we break that.
I hereby declare that a package declaration at the front of a file unambiguously indicates you are parsing Perl 5 code. If you want to write a Perl 6 module or class, it'll start with the keyword module or class. I don't know yet what the exact syntax of a module or a class declaration will be, but one thing I do know is that it'll set the current global namespace much like a package declaration does.
--
A mind is a terrible thing to taste.
Re:Seriously, Perl *is* scary! (Score:1)
It doesn't work right now, because I'm in the middle of revising the core fuzzyfying functions for searching on variants of, for example /yoursisterstits/images/poolbabe1.jpg to find backup files and additional images not listed in the thumbnail gallery, plus revising the user interface for declaring the method of fooling mod_referer, but who am I kidding. I don't have that much time to look at porn.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Re:Shameless fan mail :-) (Score:1)
I'd recommend that you read "The Design and Evolution of C++" by (who else?) Bjarne Stroustrup if you're interested in this kind of non-academic language design. The book's a bit old, so it's missing some of C++'s newer features, but it's a fun read if you like that sort of thing.
Re:Wow... (Score:2)
IMHO, they should have been addressing some of the design patterns that are harder to implement in C++.
I mean just look around at what people *want* to do with the language. Look at Qt and their
just my 2 cents...
-pos
The truth is more important than the facts.
Re:Wow... (Score:1)
Mike.
Re:Thanks to Larry and Tim: Paying for the vision (Score:1)
This is the right direction for Perl (Score:3)
First of all, it's sad that Slashdot couldn't hold notable members of the Perl community. Makes me a bit wistful to look over the nearly content-free posts on this topic and remember Abigail's scathing and 100% accurate flames, and Tom Christensen's odd and brilliant posts. Assholes, maybe, but their minds are unparalleled and their writing incisive. They're sorely missed in a discussion like this.
In any case, Perl is in good hands. Require strict and warnings for modules makes sense. Leaving room for Perl to grow is a good thing. Making everything an object that is free to return in scalar context adds flexibility while giving functions the freedom to behave as they see fit.
Most of all, these principles are in place before the major work of adding full Unicode support and meta-languaging begins. There's a firm hand on the tiller, and Larry seems as up for the work as he ever has been.
When Perl has a real specification, period. (Score:1)
This is the fundamental reason why languages defined by portable implementations have problems growing beyond those implementations. The implementation actually specifies too much of the langauge's behavior - a real spec says explicitly what behavior is implementation-dependent, which tells implementors and users both exactly where the boundaries are.
The Common Lisp and Scheme communities wrote real specs for their languages (ANSI and IEEE, respectively). The user communities routinely beat up implementors and vendors who don't conform to the spec. As a result, they can write portable programs that compile to native code, without getting stuck in the C/C++ quagmire.
Someday there may be a way to answer these questions:
Are JPerl and Perl the same language?
How about JPython and Python?
that doesn't boil down to "ask Larry/Guido". A year or two after that, you might see real compilers for those languages.
Re:Wow... (Score:1)
No, he is planning (suggesting?) that that should be the default. Perl rarely forces anything.
perldoc -f no
Re:condradictions... (Score:2)
Re:use module vs use Perl 6 (Score:1)
--
Re:Wow... (Score:1)
Unless I misunderstand, I think that nothing stops you from saying:
no strict;
no warnings;
after your module or class or whatever statement if you really want to. Frankly, I think "encouraging" module writers to be -w safe is a great idea. One of my favorites is hideously noisy with -w, (unless it's been rewritten recently); every time I use it I have to look at the output and remember whether this means it failed or if it's just the usual noise.
--
Re:PERL MONGERS READ THIS (Score:1)
--
Re:Proof that P users are stupid. (Score:2)
Either you jest or you display ignorance. The perl distribution comes with tons of doc. Try issuing perldoc perldoc. You can use perldoc -f function_name_here to get information about any perl function and perldoc module_name_here to get documentation about any module for which the author has provided it (which is most of them if not damn near all of them).
More to the point, try man perl - each of the 70 sections is its own extensive man page, covering references, objects extensions in c - you name it it's probably there.
Oh, and how extensible is Perl? I never heard of an applet written in Perl.
What do these 2 sentences have to do with each other? many meabytes of perl extensions can be found at CPAN [cpan.org] - I don't believe I've ever wanted to do something that wasn't made much easier by something that was already there. What does writing applets have to do with exensibility? perl is quite extensible in both perl and c. And there is a project to compile perl source to java bytecode, tho I'm not sure if it's still active. But client side applets aren't my main concern. I don't think they're flavor of the week anymore, anyhow.
--
Perl 6.66 (Score:1)
Re:Wow... (Score:1)
Re:Cool. .net on steroids. (Score:1)
I'd be up for that..
..anyone know of a project going, let me know...
Re:Seriously, Perl *is* scary! (Score:1)
This is a really big part of Perl for myself. After learning a certain amount of the language, I was able to start guessing at how perl would work, and it would usually work that way. Where the more designed languages seem to have just mandated the way things are done, Perl tries to interpret as many ways as a user might think of doing them. This is not an easy task, and once accomplished can yield some very ugly, bad code.
It goes something like this: I say, "I wonder what would happen if I tried xxx." Perl will do it the way I want. C doesn't work that way. Java will surely have deprecated the useful way of doing it because it wasn't supported on a common architecture like the Timex Indiglo.
Re:condradictions... (Score:1)
I think the point was that the EXTEND keyword at the top of the DEC BASIC programs served no purpose other than to say "I am a new program", whereas the (proposed) Perl 6 method merely replaces the "package" keyword with something else. The keyword has to be there anyway. Changing from "package" to "class" just overloads the meaning.
--
Re:Thanks to Larry and Tim: Paying for the vision (Score:1)
Sure they will. So what?
wont the profit generated be more than enough to cover the salary they pay him ?
Perhaps. So what?
isnt oreilley as a business simply existing to generate profits ?
Ahhh, not necessarily. There are plenty of businesses that exist for reasons besides simply making a profit.
Habit #5: Think Win-Win [amazon.com]. Try it some time.
Not all positive decisions have to be at the expense of others. O'Reilly helps the computer biz, and it helps improve their own market, and Larry gets a job making bucks doing what he loves. What's wrong with that?
--
Thanks to Larry and Tim: Paying for the vision (Score:2)
I think it's great that Larry is taking the time to be the visionary and leader on Perl, and providing so much of himself in what goes into Perl 6.
And I think equally important is that O'Reilly [oreilly.com] are basically paying Larry to do it. As far as I know, Larry's been getting a paycheck from ORA for just doing the Perl stuff that he does, not unlike Damian Conway getting a paid year sabbatical to be Damian.
That salary for Larry has to be some of the best investment in the community and infrastructure of software development yet, and I cheer Tim & co. for doing it.
--
Re:Summoning lost spirits (Score:1)
Re:Cool. .net on steroids. (Score:2)
Re:The perfect language (Score:1)
The perfect language (Score:2)
I think that java approches being a really great language, but stops short because it is so god awful slow. It is also very verbose and although I like it, it doesn't go as fast as perl,python, or php. What it does have is stability, consitency, and standard libraries that come with every runtime environment. If perl 6 had classes remenicent of pythong, came with a full featured standard GUI (TK is quick,dirty, and fast but doesn't compare to the feature set of swing), standard thread, standard complex sound IO, and standard socket set that's more straightforward, I would never use anything else. I know its alot, but if that was there, then I think the language would be much more complete, then other stuff could be added with modules.
Re:What!!! (Score:1)
--
What!!! (Score:3)
Re:Wow... (Score:1)
I also get the impression that even if using warnings and strict is the default behavior, it will still be possible to turn it off if that's desirable. IIRC somebody suggested that there be something like a use loose pragma that would turn off default strict behavior, and it's already possible to selectively turn off warnings for particular blocks of code. I don't think that anyone has seriously suggested making Perl a Bondage and Discipline language where everything must be done just so.
Re:Proof that P users are stupid. (Score:1)
Which just means that you're not looking. In fact, there is currently a reference to an article on writing Gnome panel applets [perl.com] in the Perl slashbox here on slashdot. Your lack of knowledge does not mean that it isn't being done.
Re:use module vs use Perl 6 (Score:1)
There's already a use [version] pragma that requires that the Perl in use be [version] or higher. IOW, use 6.0.0 would not prevent the code from working in a hypothetical perl7.
Re:Wow... (Score:2)
It just so happens that I know exactly one such person--and he is (without a hint of exaggeration) a mind of genious caliber. Hmm... Well, I guess you've taught me that I should forget about becoming a C++ expert. Thanks!
Re:Perl is scary. (Score:1)
Not very definite (Score:1)
Is it just me or does that pretty much sum up the article? Not being a troll, but for being articles that are supposed to define what direction Perl will be headed, they don't seem to give any definite answers.
I think that Larry took on a much bigger job than he anticipated when he decided to completely rework the language. Making a language that is entirely perfect, yet all things to all people is impossible and he will have to realize that before any real work will get done!
--
(Mountain Dew == Canned Code)
Seriously, Perl *is* scary! (Score:1)
In a way, this is a variation on Microsoft's Always-Second-Guess-The-User mentality. The difference is that MS assumes all users are idiots, and Wall assumes all Perl programmers are like him: gifted creative people who prefer non-linear thinking.
OK, this is nothing wrong with this. I'm not part of the Perl culture, but I respect it. Just try to remember that the ultimate purpose of all software is for somebody to use, not just to show how clever you are.
__
Um. Perl6 knows that it is perl 6 because... (Score:2)
Sure that works. Sure.
But wouldn't it make the language a lot more readable to start with a new line like:
perl 6.0
Then newbies would be more likely to guess why their perl5 compiler/interpreter croaks??
No of course not. That would make no sense. They wouldn't have to buy a book from a certain well known publisher to use Perl...
So I'm cynical. Call me cynical.
Re:Um. Perl6 knows that it is perl 6 because... (Score:2)
Of course your perl came bundled with the OS and is a version behind.
So you would swear about perl a bit and then you give up. That's how it goes pretty much isn't it?
Re:Um. Perl6 knows that it is perl 6 because... (Score:2)
To a reasonable approximation either the 6.0 system understands 5.0 syntax or it doesn't. If it doesn't its going to come unstuck anyway when people try to run it on legacy code. If it does, and Larry seems to imply that it does to some extent, then there's no excuse for making this harder for users.
A language should beg people to use it. It sells more books too.
Re:PERL MONGERS READ THIS (Score:2)
Larry wasn't talking about making functions return the current, bloated implementation of objects -- he was, instead, talking about adding a new implementation of object (based on a C struct) to perl, and having them return those -- implemented well, this shouldn't be much slower than the current (parsed) implementation such things, especially since often what you'll lose in having to make sub calls for stringify and numify you'll win by not having to translate the original structs in the first place.
An object is just a concept, not an implementation.
Josh -- (of NY.pm)
Re:The perfect language (Score:2)
Huh? Java has a totally retarded language design that at best is an imperfect improvement over an even larger kluge, C++.
Of course, some of the "improvements" to Java aren't improvements at all. Everything is a class? No templates?
There is a reason all the implementations of Java are crappy - you can't make a cake out of shit.
Perl versioning... (Score:1)
Perl is as much a culture as it is a programming language.
I personally do not like the idea of using the existence of "package" as a way to distinguish perl5 from perl6. While this works for the modules, what about non package applications?
There's already a require VERSION convention established. The new version of perl could require that this be supplied to activate perl 6 functionality. Scripts without this would be assumed to be at 5.x.
- Pat
Re:The perfect language (Score:1)
Don't confuse design with implementation. Java is a great language with mediocre implementations and monolithic amounts of class library rushed out the door to feed the ravenous programming public at large. Java has enormous room for improvement in the realm of performance.
The java language itself is rather elegant, right down the the bytecode operations.
However, at the moment, we're talking about Perl.
Before Perl, I would have defined a great language as one with a straightforward and clear design. Java qualifies, however, Perl is none of these in my opinion. Perl can't be described in BNF -- it requires a magical context sensitive tokenizer sprinkled with magic Wall-ian pixie dust. Yet, without question, Perl is a great language too.
Perl has forced me to redefine my definition of a great language as one which effectively fulfills the needs of it's users. This is something which even the angriest python evangelist would have to agree that perl does well.
There are tasks I can accomplish in a 1/2 hour of perl coding which would take me days to accomplish in java. Programming perl is also more fun to me...I don't know why. Perhaps this is due to it's "more than one way to do it" philosophy which provides me with countless options. Perhaps it's the unix based culture that I love. Or perhaps it's the overall goodhearted spirit behind the majority of the Perl community that Larry has carefully fostered.
I wouldn't, however, want to manage a million lines of perl code. One of the things I've noticed is that the better the perl programmer, the harder it is to read their code.
Perl is the language which allows you to do in 1 line, what you should have done in 20.
Re:PERL MONGERS READ THIS (Score:2)
Second, Perl5 is already ebject oriented. But the OO stuff is kind of kludgy and particularly unieldy when dealing with class hierarchies. I cannot see how moving OO features to the core, as I understand is planned, and cleaning up the way inheritence is handled based on Perl5 experience can make Perl6 worse than Perl5. This is not adding features, this is correcting suboptimal design.
Re:PERL MONGERS READ THIS (Score:2)
Seems to me the opposite is true. Right now using objects and packages incur high overhead. Moving the inheritence code from the interpreter to the core ( which is compiled) should eliminate some of it and improve performance of OO perl code. The basic issue is that we are not talking about adding OO to perl but about correcting a faulty OO implementation. You ask what is wrong with thingies and packages. basically, IMHO, performance and the inhereritence mechanism. If Perl 6 improves on these issues it will be a Good Thing.
I certainly see the danger of screw-up, and simulating java performance will be a disaster. But we ought to give Larry Wall some credit ;-)
Re:The Perfect Number (Score:1)
6
28
496
8128
then it gets hard.
anyone know a proof that all perfect numbers are even?
Re:hrmm, perl is still better than PHP for web wor (Score:1)
In any case, I don't care much for the kind of data acquisition slash web proposition you're describing anymore. But if Perl is helping you to develop an exciting application, more power to you.
In fact it might be illuminating to hear, from your application's point of view, what you reckon might be the most exciting new feature in Perl 6.
Re:Summoning lost spirits (Score:1)
Still I can't help but feeling that the language has somehow aged (rather than matured) over the last couple of years. People just don't seem to be as enchanted with Perl as they used to be, and "Perl 6" in places seems motivated by a strong sentiment to regain this lost sense of wonder, instead of by concrete applications that Perl could be or should be targetting.
But, I know nothing.
Summoning lost spirits (Score:2)
But nowadays, I'm bored stiff with (programming for) the web, and likewise, my interest in Perl has waned. Also not unimportant, stuff like PHP has basically taken the crown from Perl where it comes to web development.
This is not to say that Perl doesn't have a place. Perl lends itself extremely well to perlish things. It's just that the excitement surrounding Perl seems to have diminished.
And so sometimes I cannot help but wonder whether this longish and rather dramatic prelude to the start of the preliminary design for Perl 6 is really not just a way to try and summon some lost Perl spirit; to try and recapture some of the excitement of yore.
Does the world really need another Perl? And if yes, what should it provide? The answers to that last question seem to oscillate wildly between grand visions of syntax independance and mundane matters such as thread support.
Frankly I think neither answer is very exciting. Grand visions are a dime a dozen, and thread support is just thread support.
The bottom line, I guess, is whether Perl 6 will succeed in targetting an application, or whether it will just succumb to change for the sake of change.
Let's just hope for the former.
Re:PERL MONGERS READ THIS (Score:1)
Making one great piece of software that needs little or no change does not mean the next to come will be an improvement.
Of course, you might argue, presidents have little to do with software.
Re:PERL MONGERS READ THIS (Score:1)
I understood what you tried to say, but let me tell you one thing, C++ objects are little more than complex structures.
C++ is slower to compile, but you only compile once. You see there'll be a penalty for perl every run and not just once. So in perl the fact that it becomes OO has longer lasting consequence.
What is amazing about OO in C++ is the mangling of names that end up in libraries with 200 character identifiers. In perl we got packages and blessed thingies - why change that? You saw the part on perl5/6 compatibility? I dropped java because there is more than one version, the best browsers won't run the code from the latest SDK's(whatever, JDK) and I felt Sun was messing a great idea up. Also I can't think of anything slower than the latest java machines.
So back to perl, I fear perl will be slower, clumsier and unstable just like java.
The CPAN is becoming a mess, and that is leaving me perl-paranoid - am I loosing my favorite language?
See for example the Gtk modules. Doing a CPAN installation with the shell you get Gtk. Then you have to go to your
See the Net::IRC module, it has some code by Nat Torkington, or so the authors claim. Everyone knows Nat is a great perl programmer, but I took the time to read the source and geez....what a mess....is that the kind of libraries being allowed in CPAN?
I think we might be loosing it. I want a snapshot of perl and CPAN from January 2001, I don't need more than that....like I said perl will be perl5.
Re:PERL MONGERS READ THIS (Score:1)
As I don't know how thingies get casted from one type to the next in perl guts I don't know how much faster the objects will be for type conversion. If I had to take a shot, I'd say slower.
Anyway, I hate to see perl go true OO and "fix" all the little things that don't need fixing. Do you want to be geeky like python programmers(oh man, I'm outta here now...)?
Blah! Enough writing on
Re:PERL MONGERS READ THIS (Score:1)
I agree that perl inheritance is one huge patch, but exactly does it do wrong? Use an array to find parents and children? What's wrong there, really? It is different and Larry always bragged about perl OO being just different. Java won't allow multiple inheritance, C++ will, and perl uses and array for inheritance and the word "class" isn't there, it's different but how is this going to be corrected when there's nothing wrong with it.
I do give Larry all the credit in the world, and who I am to be the critic, but I don't think perl needs changing. It needs improvement on what's already there. Make it faster, provide better compiling support for commercial applications, add functions, make some extremely popular and well tested modules a part of the core, and so on.... Please let it be clear that although I started this thread saying "Larry is out of his mind" I do respect him and have chosen perl for more than the language, I also chose it for the people that use it and for the discussions that it brings about
I just hope this doesn't end up like java, really....
PERL MONGERS READ THIS (Score:3)
- Everything will be an object.
This is ridiculous. I always chose C over C++, now I'm choosing perl5 over 6. Period. I'm a perl5 monger(brasilia.pm.org) now. There'll be perl6 mongers. I'll call them the PERL BLOATERS. I can write better perl with perl5.
- 'package' means perl5 otherwise 'use perl6';
A FCKING PATCH. MICROSOFT STYLE, LARRY. Go for it.
- Perl will stay perl.
Uhuh. And we're all stupid and can't tell. Perl 5 is PERL, 6 is PERL++.
Conclusions
Yeah, just like Samba we're going to see 2 perls from now on. I'm sticking with 5. Most will move to 6.
Fine with me. Just glad I dig perl 5. If others agree just show you do by writing better perl 5!!!!
Perl is scary. (Score:5)
Some people get scared when they hear the word Perl... [bbspot.com]
Re:Great! (Score:1)
Haven't tried it yet. May get around to it tonight.
Re:Wow... (Score:1)
That would be the real Perl Apocalypse.
When will the Perl compiler make real executables? (Score:3)
I am disappointed by the fact that Perl can not deliver compiled code. The help blurb on the Perl executable says that the compiler option is experimental! When will this not be experimental?
Shameless fan mail :-) (Score:4)
I think this article is interesting in that it gives some rare insights into language design. You always hear people complaining about why didn't x (where x is C++, Java, Perl, etc) do this or that? Why this feature or syntax? Here Larry points out some trade off that may not be obvious to "end user". And all written in a easy to understand language called English too ;-)
While this is not a complete redesign, it is not everyday you get to see just exactly one design an programming language used by millions of people. Good stuff, definitely stuff that matters. This is a must read for people interestined in programming language. I am really looking forward to the next one.
OT: The design of Perl6 is somewhat similar to the kernel: anyone can submit rfc (patch) and Larry (Linus) has the final say on what goes it. (No, I don't know where I am going with this either :-)
====
There is a perfect language - C (Score:1)
As for classes, they are certainly easier to impliment in C++, but well structured C code can be made to behave very similarly, and without much extra effort. The class implimentation in perl seems rather odd and unintuitive.
Re:Wow... (Score:3)
OTOH, why not? Python does it [ducks]
--
Re:Wow... (Score:5)
The most notable, for me, is the addition of namespaces. While I understand and agree with the idea that unused functions shouldn't pollute the global namespace, I find that moving all of C++'s standard functions into a separate namespace overkill. It isn't like C++ programmers were having trouble coming up with function names that clashed with strcmp(), for example. What this leads to is the extra line
use namespace std;
in many programs. In essence, the moving of all these functions into a separate namespace just forced developers to create a rote workaround, not unlike the issue Larry brought up with class or module.Perl itself has grown over the years, and while many changes have benefitted the programmers and opened up many doors (references, objects, etc) the core language has changed little. Larry seems to be moving away from the spirit of TIMTOWTDI and more towards the BSDM style of language exemplified by Java (or insert a language you love to hate). "You must use warnings and strict everywhere except your main module" is not free and fun.
There is no doubting the efficacy of -w and use strict;. I use it in all my own Perl programs, but many don't. This used to be okay. When I used to answer questions on clpm, I always chided querents for not using them. It was good advice (just turning on warnings can help nail a problem in many cases), but they could always take it or leave it. Now in Perl 6 it seems that this attitude that what goes on between programmers and the language is none of our business is done away with, and a school marm with a quick ruler is the new paradigm.
I grew up in Perl during Perl 5 and always laughed at the backwardness of those who touted Perl 4's abilities (Alaskan electrician, Purl Gurl, etc.), but now I find myself wondering if I am exhibiting the same stubbornness. If I am, am I right in this? Perhaps I need to change with the language?
Dancin Santa
Perl 6 (Score:4)
Threading - MP3::Napster, a popular module written by Lincoln Stein requires a threaded perl interpreter; I happen to use this module for my project [no-ip.com] (spam, spam [grin]).
More perl ports - I would like to see perl ported to PalmOS; some nodes on PerlMonks [perlmonks.org] reveal that there is a lot of interest in this; Although I sometimes wish they would take a look at the projects on handhelds.org [handhelds.org].
Dusk begins to realize that he is ranting....
Anyway, I am sure that I will be pleased with the results; Saint Larry will not let us [perlmonks.org] down :)
Great! (Score:5)
My guess it that Python porters were able to overcome this obstacle by writing much of Python in Python itself, hence Pippy. [endeavors.com]
Once Perl 6 is released, though, the Perl community will be able to quickly play catch up, and get a port out rapidly. Woohoo!
Re: It's called Dylan. (Score:2)
I have to say, though: of the currently popular scripting languages, Python seems to closest to becoming a real programming language, and it's still retaining its original utility and simplicity. What Python is missing at this point is a new implementation that provides incremental compilation to efficient native code, plus a few language cleanups to go with that.
Re: It's called Dylan. (Score:2)
Re:A question for Larry (Score:2)
I know I'm better then Heidi just ask my ex boyfreind
I fucked Heidi's camel once!!