in reply to Re: perl 6
in thread perl 6
I couldn't agree with you more but it even goes back further than that:
machine language people mocked assemblers
assemblers mocked C
C mocked shell scripters (and everyone else)
shell scripters derided perl
perl derides ...
At one time it was real easy to make a distinction between compiled languages and interpreted ones. And there was a basis in fact for that - compiled (to native machine code) always run faster. Now that being said, there's been great leaps with bytecode style languages (Java, and to some extent perl). Having a simple script breakdown to bytecode which can then be run by some type of virtual machine is having it's fifteen minutes. That's what Java is, that's what .Net is, that's almost what perl5 is and is what perl6 is going to be.
I just hope whatever management I'm under will let me pick the right tool for the job. Whether thats a compiled langauge, a true interpreted language, or a bytecode language. I have faith in myself on when to use which - gratefully so does my current management and hopefully so will future ones.
-derby