Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
laziness, impatience, and hubris

Re^11: No, "We" Don't Have to Do Anything

by Anonymous Monk
on Feb 28, 2006 at 21:02 UTC ( #533505=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re^10: No, "We" Don't Have to Do Anything
in thread No, "We" Don't Have to Do Anything

This node falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
  • Comment on Re^11: No, "We" Don't Have to Do Anything

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^12: No, "We" Don't Have to Do Anything
by ysth (Canon) on Mar 01, 2006 at 09:36 UTC
    What's wrong with finishing the Perl 5 compiler? Ten years ago, there was "undump()", then there was "perlcc", and now both are abandoned.
    Go for it. I don't get this idea you seem to have that there's some organizational level above developers/volunteers, either in perl5 or perl6. The compiler stuff was a neat idea; several people put in the initial work. The parts people willing to put in the work found most useful have been maintained and enhanced as time goes by (B, B::Deparse, B::Concise, B::Xref, etc.). Other parts have atrophied in absence of someone interested enough to do the work. So who are you talking to?
Re^12: No, "We" Don't Have to Do Anything
by diotalevi (Canon) on Feb 28, 2006 at 21:28 UTC

    I can't possibly do a thing to ruin perl for you or to prevent you from getting your job done. How does anything I do stop you from doing anything? Just as you can't stop me from doing things I think are important, neither can I stop you. You lose exactly nothing when I upload a module to CPAN. You gain something when you use something I've worked on to improve your own code. Recently I wrote some more tests for B and made B::Lint pluggable.

    Tell me about how this has made you suffer. Please.

    ⠤⠤ ⠙⠊⠕⠞⠁⠇⠑⠧⠊

    A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
Re^12: No, "We" Don't Have to Do Anything
by atcroft (Abbot) on Feb 28, 2006 at 22:53 UTC
    What's wrong with making perltidy actually robust enought that we know that nothing has changed.

    If you mean either because the file hasn't changed since last it was tidied and perltidy doesn't need to do anything, or because there has been an error and it shouldn't overwrite your original file, then maybe this bit of shell script might prove helpful:

    #!/bin/bash PERLTIDY=/usr/bin/perltidy PERLTIDYOPTIONS=' -l 123 ' TOUCH=/bin/touch DIFF=/usr/bin/diff CP=/bin/cp CPOPTIONS=' -v ' WC=/usr/bin/wc if [ $# -gt 0 ] then echo Command line: $0 $@ for file in $@ do if [ ! -e $file.tdy ] then TOUCH $file.tdy fi if [ `$DIFF -q $file $file.tdy | $WC -l` -gt 0 ] then $PERLTIDY $PERLTIDYOPTIONS $file if [ -e $file.ERR ] then echo Error detected-not replacing else if [ `$DIFF -q $file $file.tdy | $WC -l` -gt 0 ] then $CP $CPOPTIONS $file.tdy $file else echo Skipping replacement of $file - tidied file matches ori +ginal fi fi else echo Skipping $file - perltidy on file not necessary fi done else echo Usage: $0 filename [filename2] fi

    Hope that helps.

Re^12: No, "We" Don't Have to Do Anything
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Feb 28, 2006 at 21:30 UTC

    The “P” in Perl stands for “practical”, not “fun”, nor “interesting”, nor “pointless”.

    No, it stands for Pathological.

    Now go away, troll.

    Makeshifts last the longest.

Re^12: No, "We" Don't Have to Do Anything
by blazar (Canon) on Dec 26, 2006 at 14:20 UTC
    Is there a conspiracy to prevent Perl 5 from being made simple and robust?

    Note: sorry for replying so late, but I noticed this thread only now.

    Well, no conspiracy, but Perl has never been designed, thought, claimed or intended to be simple at all. I love simplicity, and I admire it in other languages. But it's not part of Perl, period. And for some reason I love Perl too. As far as robustness is concerned, I don't know: probably it has never been considered a main design objective, i.e. if compared to other charachteristics, but it has certainly been taken into account to some extent as well. Indeed the language has been designed to be practical and magic. Yet it evolved into something robust enough to be used reliably enough in production, and business, and all those other environments and situations you seem to boast about. Perl 6 is... err... well... a dream of bringing all this to another level: made even more practical, more magic, but also consistent at the same time. Well, Perl 5 happens to be a dream come true. I don't see anything that could possibly prevent Perl 6 from being another one, and I feel like giving it a chance: what I see currently happening seems to support my hope! I find your rants many orders of magnitude more annoying than the alleged "hype".

    Me too. If it's any comfort, just think of the design of Perl 6 as
    a genetic algorithm running on a set of distributed wetware CPUs.
    We'll just keep mutating our ideas till they prove themselves adaptive.
    - Larry Wall in p6l, "Re: Adding linear interpolation to an array"

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://533505]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others perusing the Monastery: (4)
As of 2021-06-24 19:39 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    What does the "s" stand for in "perls"? (Whence perls)

    Results (132 votes). Check out past polls.