Hi gurus and nubys,
You may be interested in reading Larry Wall’s Apocalypse 12,
found here:
What can I say, what this recall to you?
$d= Dog.new()
Looks rubish!
I am reading it now… They always give me lots of inspiration.
By saying that I should also mention that I never will abandon
Ruby for perl6.
···
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 09:59:44 +0000, gabriele renzi wrote:
You may be interested in reading Larry Wall’s Apocalypse 12,
found here:
Apocalypse 12What can I say, what this recall to you?
$d= Dog.new()
–
Simon Strandgaard
gabriele renzi wrote:
Hi gurus and nubys,
You may be interested in reading Larry Wall’s Apocalypse 12,
found here:
Apocalypse 12What can I say, what this recall to you?
$d= Dog.new()
After reading it my first thought was, My head hurts
My second thought was that a lot of it is too clever by half.
I guess we’ll have to wait for the Exegesis in order to see how these
features are to be used, but at the moment Ruby’s object system seems
better, becuase it’s a lot simpler.
Mark Sparshatt wrote:
After reading it my first thought was, My head hurts
My second thought was that a lot of it is too clever by half.
I guess we’ll have to wait for the Exegesis in order to see how these
features are to be used, but at the moment Ruby’s object system seems
better, becuase it’s a lot simpler.
I skimmed it last night. I see a lot of influences there, but Ruby
definitely left an impression.
Larry is tackling some interesting problems, such as handling multiple
dispatch. It will be interesting to watch, but I agree that there is
little to temp me back to perl.
···
–
– Jim Weirich jim@weirichhouse.org http://onestepback.org
“Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it.” – Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
Simon Strandgaard wrote:
···
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 09:59:44 +0000, gabriele renzi wrote:
You may be interested in reading Larry Wall’s Apocalypse 12,
found here:
Apocalypse 12What can I say, what this recall to you?
$d= Dog.new()
Looks rubish!
I am reading it now… They always give me lots of inspiration.
By saying that I should also mention that I never will abandon
Ruby for perl6.
I might, if perl6’s virtual machine runs faster inside real-time game
loops than Ruby.
That is, until Ruby gets its own VM, then I’ll switch back to Ruby.
–
Simon Strandgaard wrote:
By saying that I should also mention that I never will abandon
Ruby for perl6.
Even if perl6 turns out to be a better, more powerful language (not
particularly likely but certainly not impossible)?
Then you must be a deeply religious person, at least when it comes to
programming languages.
···
–
Grzegorz Chrupała | http://pithekos.net | grzegorzc@jabber.org
It seems that most major problems in the world, from Northern Ireland
to the Middle East, have arisen because people know too much history.
– John D. Barrow
[copy by mail in case the GW is down]
In article pan.2004.04.17.09.47.51.390269@adslhome.dk,
···
Simon Strandgaard neoneye@adslhome.dk wrote:
I am reading it now… They always give me lots of inspiration.
By saying that I should also mention that I never will abandon
Ruby for perl6.
Previous apocalypses did that for me a long time ago. Perl6 – the language
not Parrot which is a good idea – seems to be a kludge on Perl5 with
enough incompatibilities with Perl5 to block many people from upgrading…
–
Ollivier ROBERT -=- EEC/AMI -=- ollivier.robert@eurocontrol.int
Usenet Canal Historique FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!
In article c5roei$i30$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk,
···
Asfand Yar Qazi <im_not_giving_it_here@i_hate_spam.com> wrote:
Simon Strandgaard wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 09:59:44 +0000, gabriele renzi wrote:
You may be interested in reading Larry Wall’s Apocalypse 12,
found here:
Apocalypse 12What can I say, what this recall to you?
$d= Dog.new()
Looks rubish!
I am reading it now… They always give me lots of inspiration.
By saying that I should also mention that I never will abandon
Ruby for perl6.I might, if perl6’s virtual machine runs faster inside real-time game
loops than Ruby.That is, until Ruby gets its own VM, then I’ll switch back to Ruby.
What if Ruby also runs on Perl6’s VM (Parrot)? Then you wouldn’t need to
switch at all. I susupect that it’s quite possible that we’ll have Ruby
running on Parrot by the time Perl6 comes out (given that Perl6 is
still a couple of years away).
Phil
Asfand Yar Qazi wrote:
I am reading it now… They always give me lots of inspiration.
By saying that I should also mention that I never will abandon
Ruby for perl6.I might, if perl6’s virtual machine runs faster inside real-time game
loops than Ruby.That is, until Ruby gets its own VM, then I’ll switch back to Ruby.
Of course, Ruby is also being ported to Parrot as we’re speaking.
You know, everytime I read the Apocalypse, I’m getting more and more
confused. Perhaps Perl6 is too smart for me 
But it also makes me
think how big the Perl community [still] is. Perl6 is not even
spec-complete, and will probably never hope to reach the same market
size as Perl5, but its implementation is already progressing nicely.
Parrot will most probably be finished well before before Ruby2’s VM
···
–
dave
Then you must be a deeply religious person, at least when it comes to
programming languages.
Sometimes you need to trust the person which develop a language.
When you've lost confidence in someone, it's difficult to retrieve it
Guy Decoux
I have been programming in many languages, and Ruby has by far the
nicest syntax, while at the same time being that language where
I can express what ever I want, without restrictions.
perl6 is complex, so you can probably do some powerful things with
little typing. However I am sure that complexity will demand extra
brain-resources to remember, which in the end will steal resources
you should have been using for thinking. There is too much noise.
I am not religious. In the past I was used to lower quality
languages (Amos, C++, pascal, java). I didn’t have any real quality
demands. But today with Ruby I am getting a feeling for quality.
Same as convincing a Rolls-Royes user, to switch to a Yogo,
even though both cars can take you to the same place.
···
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 15:07:54 +0200, Grzegorz Chrupała wrote:
Simon Strandgaard wrote:
By saying that I should also mention that I never will abandon
Ruby for perl6.Even if perl6 turns out to be a better, more powerful language (not
particularly likely but certainly not impossible)?Then you must be a deeply religious person, at least when it comes to
programming languages.
–
Simon Strandgaard
I switched from Perl as my primary development language to Ruby because it
was faster and easier for me to get things done in Ruby, and the resulting
code was always more readable and thus heasier to maintain. I’ve been
keeping up with some of the Perl6 development since before I switched from
Perl to Ruby, and so far I have doubts that any of the proposed changes
are going to make Perl6 a language that is faster and easier to get things
done in, with greater readability, than Ruby. Perl6 is still a long way
off, so I’ll reserve final judgement until there’s a concrete language to
play with, but for the foreseeable future I remain solidly committed to
Ruby.
Kirk Haines
···
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Grzegorz [UTF-8] Chrupała wrote:
Simon Strandgaard wrote:
By saying that I should also mention that I never will abandon
Ruby for perl6.Even if perl6 turns out to be a better, more powerful language (not
particularly likely but certainly not impossible)?
Grzegorz Chrupała wrote:
Then you must be a deeply religious person, at least when it comes to
programming languages.
Or loyal to something he loves.
_why
Grzegorz Chrupała wrote:
By saying that I should also mention that I never will abandon
Ruby for perl6.Even if perl6 turns out to be a better, more powerful language (not
particularly likely but certainly not impossible)?
Aren’t many of the P6 apocalypses out already? That should give a pretty
good base from which someone can judge [personally, of course] whether
P6 is a “better” language for him/her or not, correct?
I personally prefer Ruby too, btw. P6 may be more powerful or
feature-rich (multiple inheritance, primitive types [perhaps?], etc) but
there are some things that I want to leave behind for good, like $scalar
vs @array vs %hash (which is not very OO-ish anyway). Also the need to
end every line with a semicolon.
Of course, all this does not mean we cannot learn/borrow stuffs from P6.
For example, Apocalypse 7 (Formats) looks pretty nifty for text
processing, mail merge, templating, etc.
···
Then you must be a deeply religious person, at least when it comes to
programming languages.
–
dave
Ollivier Robert roberto@REMOVETHIS.eu.org writes:
Previous apocalypses did that for me a long time ago. Perl6 – the language
not Parrot which is a good idea – seems to be a kludge on Perl5 with
enough incompatibilities with Perl5 to block many people from upgrading…
Two objections to the above:
- A kludge on Perl5 is exactly what Perl6 isn’t. The design team has
repeatedly shown a willingness to completely rip things out and redesign them
from the ground up to make them better.
BUT:
- Incompatibility is a non-issue, since perl6 (the program) will understand
Perl5 (the language) and, in fact, assume it by default, so perl5 programs
will continue to run unchanaged even if the only perl binary on the system
is Perl6.
Now, there are several things that Perl5 programmers will have to relearn if
they choose to move to Perl6, but no-one’s going to be holding a gun to their
heads to force them to do so.
My opinion:
So far, I think Perl6 looks very promising. Just as the original Perl did, it
has incorporated good ideas from other languages - this time including
languages that were themselves influenced by Perl, such as Ruby. I’ve never
liked the Perl5 O-O solution, and it looks like Perl6’s will be much better.
It’s definitely Rubylike in some ways - discussions on the perl6-language list
make repeated reference to an increasing measurement on a “Rubyometer” - but
in others it’s completely unlike it, or any other O-O scripting language
with which I’m familiar.
Personally, I am confident that Mr. Wall and his team know what they’re doing,
and that the changes will thereofre turn out to be for the better. If so, does
that mean I’ll be abandoning Ruby for Perl 6? Well, definitely not
“abandoning”. I may prefer to program in Ruby these days, but I haven’t
“abandoned” Perl 5 by any stretch; I use it just about every day at work, in
fact. Heck, I even still program in Ksh88 sometimes. So the question is
whether or not Perl6 will displace Ruby as my first-choice for everyday
script-level programming, and that will depend largely on what Ruby looks like
by then. It’s not like Perl6 will be out this year.
-Mark
I always think this whenever I look up paul graham’s site and think:
why the hell there is not an ARC release yet?
···
il Sun, 18 Apr 2004 15:19:27 +0900, David Garamond lists@zara.6.isreserved.com ha scritto::
But it also makes me
think how big the Perl community [still] is. Perl6 is not even
spec-complete, and will probably never hope to reach the same market
size as Perl5, but its implementation is already progressing nicely.
Parrot will most probably be finished well before before Ruby2’s VM
why the lucky stiff wrote:
Then you must be a deeply religious person, at least when it comes to
programming languages.Or loyal to something he loves.
Even when something better than Ruby came along? Then I can categorize
that to the same “religious” box.
···
–
dave
In article cY9hc.15707$l75.11945@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net,
···
Mark J. Reed mreed@thereeds.org wrote:
Ollivier Robert roberto@REMOVETHIS.eu.org writes:
So far, I think Perl6 looks very promising. Just as the original Perl did, it
has incorporated good ideas from other languages - this time including
languages that were themselves influenced by Perl, such as Ruby. I’ve never
liked the Perl5 O-O solution, and it looks like Perl6’s will be much better.
It’s definitely Rubylike in some ways - discussions on the perl6-language list
make repeated reference to an increasing measurement on a “Rubyometer” - but
in others it’s completely unlike it, or any other O-O scripting language
with which I’m familiar.
Interesting: a google search on ‘rubyometer’ does indeed yield several
referecnes in Perl6 discussion lists (including some by Larry Wall himself).
Phil
- Mark J. Reed mreed@thereeds.org [0459 14:59]:
Ollivier Robert roberto@REMOVETHIS.eu.org writes:
Previous apocalypses did that for me a long time ago. Perl6 – the language
not Parrot which is a good idea – seems to be a kludge on Perl5 with
enough incompatibilities with Perl5 to block many people from upgrading…Two objections to the above:
- A kludge on Perl5 is exactly what Perl6 isn’t. The design team has
repeatedly shown a willingness to completely rip things out and redesign them
from the ground up to make them better.BUT:
- Incompatibility is a non-issue, since perl6 (the program) will understand
Perl5 (the language) and, in fact, assume it by default, so perl5 programs
will continue to run unchanaged even if the only perl binary on the system
is Perl6.
That causes problems in itself though, if half the programmers do it the
‘old way’ you still get line noise. It also causes major headaches for everyone
on CPAN, who have to maintain two versions of their packages, or at least arrange
it so their code supports both formats.
To be fair, I don’t see an alternative, but adding new keywords without retiring
old ones sounds like trouble…
Personally, I started to learn Ruby after I realised how big a change was
coming with p6. I figured if I was going to learn a new language, I may as well
bite the bullet and start from scratch.
I still write perl, but it’s uncomfortable now.
I agree the OOP looks better, though. But its too little too late for me.
···
–
Meeting, n.:
An assembly of people coming together to decide what person or
department not represented in the room must solve a problem.
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
Which could also describe those sticking it out on Perl when there’s
several better options now.
The Ruby community is picking up plenty of steam as devoted “religious”
zealots…work to make Ruby better, so non-devoted impious non-zealots
can enjoy a very fine language and library.
Let’s not call names, please.
···
On 2004 Apr 19, at 3:40, David Garamond wrote:
Even when something better than Ruby came along? Then I can categorize
that to the same “religious” box.
–
Ryan “John” Platte
Custom services, NIKA Consulting
http://nikaconsulting.com/