in reply to Re^3: question about: my $a AND sort {$a <=> $b} keys %hash
in thread question about: my $a AND sort {$a <=> $b} keys %hash

I understand in retrospect that's an easy conclusion and not wrong per se. The idea though, design process to forward think everything, is why Perl 6 has taken a decade and half and several design redrafts. The design process Larry used shipped a language immediately and for all its often cited warts is still, for me, easily the best high level language. There likely would be no surviving Perl at all today if Larry had undertaken lexical scope off the blocks.

  • Comment on Re^4: question about: my $a AND sort {$a <=> $b} keys %hash

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: question about: my $a AND sort {$a <=> $b} keys %hash
by Anonymous Monk on Aug 06, 2015 at 17:04 UTC
    Flawlessness may not be possible or even desirable, but a flaw is still a flaw.

      As I said, the point isn't wrong... it's just... misplaced, pointless, silly, not worth whining about, detrimental, revisionist, out of context, hindsight is 20:20, wishing in one hand... And incidentally aiding the laziest monk in the shop in making another empty reply seem reasonable. :P

      My view: the Perl hackers who whine about minor issues with Perl do more damage to Perl's rep than all the Pythonistas goose-s^W dancing through the eye of a camel.

        It also doesn't help Perl's reputation when you unleash a semicoherent tirade at anybody who suggests that some feature of Perl is less than perfect. I'd log in here more if you people weren't so contentious.

        No, Perl isn't perfect, but it's pretty good, and there are a lot of people working to make it better.