Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Syntactic Confectionery Delight
 
PerlMonks  

Re^3: Time to change the (Perl 6) guard!

by elusion (Curate)
on Jul 07, 2004 at 15:35 UTC ( #372423=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: Time to change the (Perl 6) guard!
in thread Time to change the (Perl 6) guard!

Damian Conway also said that he hopes to have / expects a beta next year. Although the language specification isn't done yet, enough has been completed to start working on a beta.
  • Comment on Re^3: Time to change the (Perl 6) guard!

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Time to change the (Perl 6) guard!
by Wassercrats on Jul 07, 2004 at 23:37 UTC
    I made the same next-year prediction yesterday (and safe to use in 2006), but everyone seemed to think I was crazy.

    Perl 6 has already been worked on for years. If a computer language takes more than three years to create, it's being developed incorrectly, except in some cases if it's a special purpose language, which Perl is not supposed to be. The longer it takes, the the more likely it is that the niche will be filled by another product by the time it comes out. That's disastrous for development of a commercial product, and a huge waste of time for a free product created by volunteers.

    Ok, I just made up the 3 year time frame, but it feels right.

      If a computer language takes more than three years to create, it's being developed incorrectly,

      I look forward to using your language.

      PS, you can use Perl 6 when it comes out anyway.

      Wouldn't a special-purpose language take less time to create, since there is less need to make it general-purpose and flexible?

        Yes, but you could take your time if there's not likely to be a competing product (and if you're not in a rush).
      If a computer language takes more than three years to create, it's being developed incorrectly

      I can't think of any languages (except perhaps assemblys) that didn't take several years to evolve into a useful form. Maybe you can help me out? What general-purpose languages have been developed correctly?

      --
      F o x t r o t U n i f o r m
      Found a typo in this node? /msg me
      % man 3 strfry

        FORTRAN...First version took over 3 years to develop 1954-1957. Probably the most successful language too, at least in terms of time it's been around. That's the closest I could find.

        There's probably a reference of computer languages that would have this information for various languages. I don't know of a web based one.

      Besides being inexperienced, I can't decide if you're confused or what. Are you a PHB in training?

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://372423]
help
Chatterbox?
[erix]: and now you are agnostic?
[james28909]: arunbear, your picking bits of history to fit your own narrative. right now, humans are smarter than in any of those times.
[james28909]: in order for there to be a mutation, there has to be a universe with laws setup that even allow a mutation.
[james28909]: everything past the first two things you piked from my posts are irrelevant to me and my beliefs. they are side effects.
[james28909]: two or three. if it has to do with how humans are handling said situations, then that is after they were able to evolve into those problems. agnostic means only believe with evidence. i took that from a tyson video
[james28909]: and it seems that racism suggest that there is indeed a better race, but that is for evolution to decide
[1nickt]: "right now, humans are smarter than in any of those times": define "smart"

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others lurking in the Monastery: (12)
As of 2017-12-15 14:55 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    What programming language do you hate the most?




















    Results (433 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?