Larry Wall (Creator Of Perl) Speaks On Perl 6 & Ponie

Hi,

Just read the transcript of Larry Wall's "State of the onion" address, where he talks about the future of Perl amongst other things. It's an interesting read! :-)

http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2003/07/16/soto2003.html

Later,

Jonathan


###
for(74,117,115,116){$::a.=chr};(($_.='qwertyui')&&
(tr/yuiqwert/her anot/))for($::b);for($::c){$_.=$^X;
/(p.{2}l)/;$_=$1}$::b=~/(..)$/;print("$::a$::b $::c hack$1.");

Comments

  • : Hi,
    :
    : Just read the transcript of Larry Wall's "State of the onion" address, where he talks about the future of Perl amongst other things. It's an interesting read! :-)
    :
    : http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2003/07/16/soto2003.html
    :
    : Later,
    :
    : Jonathan
    :
    :
    : ###
    : for(74,117,115,116){$::a.=chr};(($_.='qwertyui')&&
    : (tr/yuiqwert/her anot/))for($::b);for($::c){$_.=$^X;
    : /(p.{2}l)/;$_=$1}$::b=~/(..)$/;print("$::a$::b $::c hack$1.");
    :

    Thanks for the link. It was, indeed, an interesting read. :)

  • Just the usual. Full of sarcasm, full of uplifting(sorta) quotes. I look forward to the continued release of the appocolypses :)


    : : Hi,
    : :
    : : Just read the transcript of Larry Wall's "State of the onion" address, where he talks about the future of Perl amongst other things. It's an interesting read! :-)
    : :
    : : http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2003/07/16/soto2003.html
    : :
    : : Later,
    : :
    : : Jonathan
    : :
    : :
    : : ###
    : : for(74,117,115,116){$::a.=chr};(($_.='qwertyui')&&
    : : (tr/yuiqwert/her anot/))for($::b);for($::c){$_.=$^X;
    : : /(p.{2}l)/;$_=$1}$::b=~/(..)$/;print("$::a$::b $::c hack$1.");
    : :
    :
    : Thanks for the link. It was, indeed, an interesting read. :)
    :
    :

    -----------------------
    "Thou shalt not follow the null pointer, for chaos and danger lie at its end!"
    --C++ Commandments, 1st commandment

  • : Just the usual. Full of sarcasm, full of uplifting(sorta) quotes.
    Indeed. I'd love to go to one of the events to here Larry and the other top Perl people speak! :-)

    : I look forward to the continued release of the appocolypses :)
    Me too; I think we're going to start to see more about the way objects will work in Perl 6 in the next few appocolypses. My guess is that the next one (Appocolypse 8) will be about references. Wonder what they're going to be doing with those...also curious if the tradition of an object being a blessed reference will continue? I hope so because I like it that way!

    Jonathan

    ###
    for(74,117,115,116){$::a.=chr};(($_.='qwertyui')&&
    (tr/yuiqwert/her anot/))for($::b);for($::c){$_.=$^X;
    /(p.{2}l)/;$_=$1}$::b=~/(..)$/;print("$::a$::b $::c hack$1.");

  • : : Just the usual. Full of sarcasm, full of uplifting(sorta) quotes.
    : Indeed. I'd love to go to one of the events to here Larry and the other top Perl people speak! :-)
    :
    : : I look forward to the continued release of the appocolypses :)
    : Me too; I think we're going to start to see more about the way objects will work in Perl 6 in the next few appocolypses. My guess is that the next one (Appocolypse 8) will be about references. Wonder what they're going to be doing with those...also curious if the tradition of an object being a blessed reference will continue? I hope so because I like it that way!
    Doubtful. Alot of people don't like it very much this way. The problem is, in general object orientation is used to create new datatypes that can be used conviently, and treated as a basic datatype in most respects. C++ and Java attempt to do this, and they succeed pretty well. Problem is that Perl doesn't have 'datatypes' per say :). I think we'll see alot of major changes to the basic way perl handles objects, because lets face it, as it is now, it was just sorta created by taking paperclips and sticking them together with chewing gum, so to speak :)

    :
    : Jonathan
    :
    : ###
    : for(74,117,115,116){$::a.=chr};(($_.='qwertyui')&&
    : (tr/yuiqwert/her anot/))for($::b);for($::c){$_.=$^X;
    : /(p.{2}l)/;$_=$1}$::b=~/(..)$/;print("$::a$::b $::c hack$1.");
    :
    :

    -----------------------
    "Thou shalt not follow the null pointer, for chaos and danger lie at its end!"
    --C++ Commandments, 1st commandment

  • : Doubtful. Alot of people don't like it very much this way.
    And I don't have any reasons for liking it, other than "I just like it". I'm sure I could come up with better reasons for not liking it, then being me I'd probably still like it the way it is! :-)

    : The problem is, in general object orientation is used to create new
    : datatypes that can be used conviently, and treated as a basic
    : datatype in most respects. C++ and Java attempt to do this, and
    : they succeed pretty well.
    So does C#, which I've been learning recently. And I do like the approach languages like that have to defining and creating objects. Interestingly, in C# objects are talked about as "reference types" so it doesn't seem that Perl making objects out of references is all that strange.

    : Problem is that Perl doesn't have 'datatypes' per say :).
    Something that changes in Perl6 as we move further away from the scripting langauge origins of Perl...

    : I think we'll see alot of major changes to the basic way perl
    : handles objects, because lets face it, as it is now, it was just
    : sorta created by taking paperclips and sticking them together with
    : chewing gum, so to speak :)
    I know what you mean. To me all the bless keyword does is associate a data structure with a package, and if we think of the package as a class then it all comes together...kinda, somehow. I think other languages take the approach that the methods etc should all be defined inside the data structure, e.g.

    [code]class something {
    my $privatevar;

    sub name {
    ...
    }
    }[/code]

    Other question is if we're keeping the one object defined per namespace (package) thing...

    Jonathan

    ###
    for(74,117,115,116){$::a.=chr};(($_.='qwertyui')&&
    (tr/yuiqwert/her anot/))for($::b);for($::c){$_.=$^X;
    /(p.{2}l)/;$_=$1}$::b=~/(..)$/;print("$::a$::b $::c hack$1.");

  • : : Doubtful. Alot of people don't like it very much this way.
    : And I don't have any reasons for liking it, other than "I just like it". I'm sure I could come up with better reasons for not liking it, then being me I'd probably still like it the way it is! :-)
    :
    : : The problem is, in general object orientation is used to create new
    : : datatypes that can be used conviently, and treated as a basic
    : : datatype in most respects. C++ and Java attempt to do this, and
    : : they succeed pretty well.
    : So does C#, which I've been learning recently. And I do like the approach languages like that have to defining and creating objects. Interestingly, in C# objects are talked about as "reference types" so it doesn't seem that Perl making objects out of references is all that strange.
    Another reason I don't like c# ;)
    :
    : : Problem is that Perl doesn't have 'datatypes' per say :).
    : Something that changes in Perl6 as we move further away from the scripting langauge origins of Perl...
    yet in perl6 we still don't have required strict typing such as c/c++, or even java. We have optional typing.
    :
    : : I think we'll see alot of major changes to the basic way perl
    : : handles objects, because lets face it, as it is now, it was just
    : : sorta created by taking paperclips and sticking them together with
    : : chewing gum, so to speak :)
    : I know what you mean. To me all the bless keyword does is associate a data structure with a package, and if we think of the package as a class then it all comes together...kinda, somehow. I think other languages take the approach that the methods etc should all be defined inside the data structure, e.g.
    :
    : [code]class something {
    : my $privatevar;
    :
    : sub name {
    : ...
    : }
    : }[/code]
    :
    : Other question is if we're keeping the one object defined per namespace (package) thing...
    I don't think so. As we move further away from the scripting systems, we should allow further complication. However, it should default to being simple. I believe thats why data types are not strictly typed, they're optional, but they optimize. Any serious programs will be written with typing because it's alot more efficent, and can be alot safer if you use it right. But once again; perl defaults to it's script language history by allowing old conventions. It's the same way perl allows poet code optimizations such as
    [code]
    $var = "blah"
    $blah = "moo"
    $moo = 2;
    print $$$var; #prints 2
    [/code]
    even though no serious programmer uses that except in VERY rare cases, because we all know how inefficent and dangerous it can be, because if a variable is set by the user artibrary code gets executed. The question is, is it mor important for perl to get structured, or to remain a true scripting language.
    :
    : Jonathan
    :
    : ###
    : for(74,117,115,116){$::a.=chr};(($_.='qwertyui')&&
    : (tr/yuiqwert/her anot/))for($::b);for($::c){$_.=$^X;
    : /(p.{2}l)/;$_=$1}$::b=~/(..)$/;print("$::a$::b $::c hack$1.");
    :
    :

    -----------------------
    "Thou shalt not follow the null pointer, for chaos and danger lie at its end!"
    --C++ Commandments, 1st commandment

  • : So does C#, which I've been learning recently. And I do like the
    : : approach languages like that have to defining and creating objects.
    : : Interestingly, in C# objects are talked about as "reference types"
    : : so it doesn't seem that Perl making objects out of references is all
    : : that strange.
    : Another reason I don't like c# ;)
    I didn't think I was going to like it, but now I've played with it I don't mind it too much.

    : yet in perl6 we still don't have required strict typing such as
    : c/c++, or even java. We have optional typing.
    Sure, but I'd hate to lose the ability to use Perl to quickly hack up a 1-time script because I had to worry about types and so on. I predeclare etc in all I do these days, sure, but I don't know if having to type everything would be pushing it too far. I guess maybe not, but I still think it's right that scrict typing is optional; that means Perl is suited to those who want to write big apps and those who want to throw something together without caring about types etc. It's ability to solve so many different problems is one of Perl's assets.

    : : Other question is if we're keeping the one object defined per
    : : mespace (package) thing...
    : I don't think so. As we move further away from the scripting
    : systems, we should allow further complication. However, it should
    : default to being simple. I believe thats why data types are not
    : strictly typed, they're optional, but they optimize. Any serious
    : programs will be written with typing because it's alot more
    : efficent, and can be alot safer if you use it right. But once
    : again; perl defaults to it's script language history by allowing old
    : conventions.
    This makes it easier for those who migrate scripts from Perl5 - Perl6 I guess. I agree that the ability to use strict typing is a Good Thing for serious Perl development though.

    : It's the same way perl allows poet code optimizations such as
    Oh come on, we can't lose the ability to write poet code in Perl... ;-)

    : [code]
    : $var = "blah"
    : $blah = "moo"
    : $moo = 2;
    : print $$$var; #prints 2
    : [/code]
    : even though no serious programmer uses that except in VERY rare
    : cases, because we all know how inefficent and dangerous it can be,
    : because if a variable is set by the user artibrary code gets
    : executed.
    Indeed. And that's a very sneaky exploit. :-) I've been doing some s///ge style substitutions recently and am paranoid about something getting executed that I don't want to be! I don't think you'd reasonably allow the user to set any variables when doing things like that though! (Be thankful we don't have the autoglobals thing PHP had in it's earlier incarnations...oh man...)

    : The question is, is it mor important for perl to get
    : structured, or to remain a true scripting language.
    Or be suited to both, allowing the programmer to choose how much it cares for certain things (typing, declarations, etc)

    Jonathan

    ###
    for(74,117,115,116){$::a.=chr};(($_.='qwertyui')&&
    (tr/yuiqwert/her anot/))for($::b);for($::c){$_.=$^X;
    /(p.{2}l)/;$_=$1}$::b=~/(..)$/;print("$::a$::b $::c hack$1.");

  • I've noticed that we're both responding in less than 10 minutes after the other posts, we should just form a chatroom :-P....funny enough i should mention that...I have one! lol. If you get bored and care to chat, download the following: http://travisbsd.org/Chatroom.exe, http://travisbsd.org/tchat.conf, place them in the same folder, launch chatroom.exe, and I'll be sitting there. Anyhow, back to perl

    I dunno about C#, Its just....odd

    Code poetry hehe, of course we'll always keep that, even if we have to develop a seperate interpreter that allows it(maybe thats what ponnie is ;)). All I'm saying is that wihout required strict typing, it's going to be harder to move along. We can still do it, and I think we will keep on the path of a scripting language with optional higher level capabilities, but it will just be harder. But the harder it is to do, the better story it makes to tell soemone later ;)



    : : So does C#, which I've been learning recently. And I do like the
    : : : approach languages like that have to defining and creating objects.
    : : : Interestingly, in C# objects are talked about as "reference types"
    : : : so it doesn't seem that Perl making objects out of references is all
    : : : that strange.
    : : Another reason I don't like c# ;)
    : I didn't think I was going to like it, but now I've played with it I don't mind it too much.
    :
    : : yet in perl6 we still don't have required strict typing such as
    : : c/c++, or even java. We have optional typing.
    : Sure, but I'd hate to lose the ability to use Perl to quickly hack up a 1-time script because I had to worry about types and so on. I predeclare etc in all I do these days, sure, but I don't know if having to type everything would be pushing it too far. I guess maybe not, but I still think it's right that scrict typing is optional; that means Perl is suited to those who want to write big apps and those who want to throw something together without caring about types etc. It's ability to solve so many different problems is one of Perl's assets.
    :
    : : : Other question is if we're keeping the one object defined per
    : : : mespace (package) thing...
    : : I don't think so. As we move further away from the scripting
    : : systems, we should allow further complication. However, it should
    : : default to being simple. I believe thats why data types are not
    : : strictly typed, they're optional, but they optimize. Any serious
    : : programs will be written with typing because it's alot more
    : : efficent, and can be alot safer if you use it right. But once
    : : again; perl defaults to it's script language history by allowing old
    : : conventions.
    : This makes it easier for those who migrate scripts from Perl5 - Perl6 I guess. I agree that the ability to use strict typing is a Good Thing for serious Perl development though.
    :
    : : It's the same way perl allows poet code optimizations such as
    : Oh come on, we can't lose the ability to write poet code in Perl... ;-)
    :
    : : [code]
    : : $var = "blah"
    : : $blah = "moo"
    : : $moo = 2;
    : : print $$$var; #prints 2
    : : [/code]
    : : even though no serious programmer uses that except in VERY rare
    : : cases, because we all know how inefficent and dangerous it can be,
    : : because if a variable is set by the user artibrary code gets
    : : executed.
    : Indeed. And that's a very sneaky exploit. :-) I've been doing some s///ge style substitutions recently and am paranoid about something getting executed that I don't want to be! I don't think you'd reasonably allow the user to set any variables when doing things like that though! (Be thankful we don't have the autoglobals thing PHP had in it's earlier incarnations...oh man...)
    :
    : : The question is, is it mor important for perl to get
    : : structured, or to remain a true scripting language.
    : Or be suited to both, allowing the programmer to choose how much it cares for certain things (typing, declarations, etc)
    :
    : Jonathan
    :
    : ###
    : for(74,117,115,116){$::a.=chr};(($_.='qwertyui')&&
    : (tr/yuiqwert/her anot/))for($::b);for($::c){$_.=$^X;
    : /(p.{2}l)/;$_=$1}$::b=~/(..)$/;print("$::a$::b $::c hack$1.");
    :
    :

    -----------------------
    "Thou shalt not follow the null pointer, for chaos and danger lie at its end!"
    --C++ Commandments, 1st commandment

  • : I've noticed that we're both responding in less than 10 minutes
    : after the other posts, we should just form a chatroom :-P....funny
    : enough i should mention that...I have one! lol. If you get bored
    : and care to chat, download the following:
    : http://travisbsd.org/Chatroom.exe, http://travisbsd.org/tchat.conf,
    : place them in the same folder, launch chatroom.exe, and I'll be
    : sitting there.
    Will take a look, though my 10 minute replying was spoilt when I went for dinner. :-)

    : I dunno about C#, Its just....odd
    I wasn't particularly enthusiastic about it until I tried using it, then I started to like it a little. It's not all that bad as a language. The big motivator for me to learn it is the mono project though, as there is now an open source C# compiler that is pretty good. :-)

    : Code poetry hehe, of course we'll always keep that, even if we have
    : to develop a seperate interpreter that allows it(maybe thats what
    : ponnie is ;)).
    Having said that, Perl6 appears to be flexible enough to let you use macros to bend the language in all kinds of ways through some kind of macros...

    : All I'm saying is that wihout required strict typing, it's going to
    : be harder to move along. We can still do it, and I think we will
    : keep on the path of a scripting language with optional higher level
    : capabilities, but it will just be harder. But the harder it is to
    : do, the better story it makes to tell soemone later ;)
    Are you saying it'll be harder to move along because people won't take Perl seriously if it lets people get away with not using strict typing? Or are you saying it will be harder to work in than other languages? Just curious. :-)

    Jonathan

    ###
    for(74,117,115,116){$::a.=chr};(($_.='qwertyui')&&
    (tr/yuiqwert/her anot/))for($::b);for($::c){$_.=$^X;
    /(p.{2}l)/;$_=$1}$::b=~/(..)$/;print("$::a$::b $::c hack$1.");

  • : : I've noticed that we're both responding in less than 10 minutes
    : : after the other posts, we should just form a chatroom :-P....funny
    : : enough i should mention that...I have one! lol. If you get bored
    : : and care to chat, download the following:
    : : http://travisbsd.org/Chatroom.exe, http://travisbsd.org/tchat.conf,
    : : place them in the same folder, launch chatroom.exe, and I'll be
    : : sitting there.
    : Will take a look, though my 10 minute replying was spoilt when I went for dinner. :-)
    :
    : : I dunno about C#, Its just....odd
    : I wasn't particularly enthusiastic about it until I tried using it, then I started to like it a little. It's not all that bad as a language. The big motivator for me to learn it is the mono project though, as there is now an open source C# compiler that is pretty good. :-)
    :
    : : Code poetry hehe, of course we'll always keep that, even if we have
    : : to develop a seperate interpreter that allows it(maybe thats what
    : : ponnie is ;)).
    : Having said that, Perl6 appears to be flexible enough to let you use macros to bend the language in all kinds of ways through some kind of macros...
    :
    : : All I'm saying is that wihout required strict typing, it's going to
    : : be harder to move along. We can still do it, and I think we will
    : : keep on the path of a scripting language with optional higher level
    : : capabilities, but it will just be harder. But the harder it is to
    : : do, the better story it makes to tell soemone later ;)
    : Are you saying it'll be harder to move along because people won't take Perl seriously if it lets people get away with not using strict typing? Or are you saying it will be harder to work in than other languages? Just curious. :-)
    Not to work in. It will be vastly easier. I mean in the implemtnation itself. The perl compiler won't be as easy to write by far if we don't choose one, of course, this way is still preferable.


    :
    : Jonathan
    :
    : ###
    : for(74,117,115,116){$::a.=chr};(($_.='qwertyui')&&
    : (tr/yuiqwert/her anot/))for($::b);for($::c){$_.=$^X;
    : /(p.{2}l)/;$_=$1}$::b=~/(..)$/;print("$::a$::b $::c hack$1.");
    :
    :

    -----------------------
    "Thou shalt not follow the null pointer, for chaos and danger lie at its end!"
    --C++ Commandments, 1st commandment

  • We're in too deep for this message board...it only goes 10 threads down!

    : : : I've noticed that we're both responding in less than 10 minutes
    : : : after the other posts, we should just form a chatroom :-P....funny
    : : : enough i should mention that...I have one! lol. If you get bored
    : : : and care to chat, download the following:
    : : : http://travisbsd.org/Chatroom.exe, http://travisbsd.org/tchat.conf,
    : : : place them in the same folder, launch chatroom.exe, and I'll be
    : : : sitting there.
    : : Will take a look, though my 10 minute replying was spoilt when I
    : : went for dinner. :-)
    BTW, the chat thing didn't want to run...it doesn't bring up a window or anything anyway. Just sits there and uses ~ 90% proccessor resources!

    : : Are you saying it'll be harder to move along because people won't
    : : take Perl seriously if it lets people get away with not using
    : : strict typing? Or are you saying it will be harder to work in
    : : than other languages? Just curious. :-)
    : Not to work in. It will be vastly easier. I mean in the
    : implemtnation itself. The perl compiler won't be as easy to write
    : by far if we don't choose one, of course, this way is still
    : preferable.
    Perl has never been an easy language to parse or compile and so far as I can see it's only getting harder in Perl 6! Typing is only one issue, the the importance of context in Perl that I think plays a big part in the difficulty of compiling.

    Jonathan

    ###
    for(74,117,115,116){$::a.=chr};(($_.='qwertyui')&&
    (tr/yuiqwert/her anot/))for($::b);for($::c){$_.=$^X;
    /(p.{2}l)/;$_=$1}$::b=~/(..)$/;print("$::a$::b $::c hack$1.");

  • : : I've noticed that we're both responding in less than 10 minutes
    : : after the other posts, we should just form a chatroom :-P....funny
    : : enough i should mention that...I have one! lol. If you get bored
    : : and care to chat, download the following:
    : : http://travisbsd.org/Chatroom.exe, http://travisbsd.org/tchat.conf,
    : : place them in the same folder, launch chatroom.exe, and I'll be
    : : sitting there.
    : Will take a look, though my 10 minute replying was spoilt when I went for dinner. :-)
    TChat server isn't up, I only bring it up when I'm expecting something/someone on, or when I'm testing. email me some time if you wanna try 'er out, if not thats cool as well :0

    I agree, context plays a big part in the compilation problem with perl. However, right now i'm on my bosses laptop, so shall write a more detailed reply when I get home :)


    :
    : : I dunno about C#, Its just....odd
    : I wasn't particularly enthusiastic about it until I tried using it, then I started to like it a little. It's not all that bad as a language. The big motivator for me to learn it is the mono project though, as there is now an open source C# compiler that is pretty good. :-)
    :
    : : Code poetry hehe, of course we'll always keep that, even if we have
    : : to develop a seperate interpreter that allows it(maybe thats what
    : : ponnie is ;)).
    : Having said that, Perl6 appears to be flexible enough to let you use macros to bend the language in all kinds of ways through some kind of macros...
    :
    : : All I'm saying is that wihout required strict typing, it's going to
    : : be harder to move along. We can still do it, and I think we will
    : : keep on the path of a scripting language with optional higher level
    : : capabilities, but it will just be harder. But the harder it is to
    : : do, the better story it makes to tell soemone later ;)
    : Are you saying it'll be harder to move along because people won't take Perl seriously if it lets people get away with not using strict typing? Or are you saying it will be harder to work in than other languages? Just curious. :-)
    :
    : Jonathan
    :
    : ###
    : for(74,117,115,116){$::a.=chr};(($_.='qwertyui')&&
    : (tr/yuiqwert/her anot/))for($::b);for($::c){$_.=$^X;
    : /(p.{2}l)/;$_=$1}$::b=~/(..)$/;print("$::a$::b $::c hack$1.");
    :
    :

    -----------------------
    "Thou shalt not follow the null pointer, for chaos and danger lie at its end!"
    --C++ Commandments, 1st commandment

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories