Re: Now, to try again...

Dan Sugalski <[email protected]> wrote:

 > At 12:29 PM 12/18/00 +0000, David Grove wrote:
 > 
 > >Sam Tregar <[email protected]> wrote:
 > >
 > >  > On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
 > >  >
 > >
 > >[snip]
 > >
 > >  > > _Perl_ _within_ _a_ _Perl_ _context_ _and_ _for_ _Perl_
_purposes_,
 > >  >
 > >  > Feeling a little hostile to the rest of the programming world? 
You're
 > >  > sounding almost nationalistic!  We're not at war.
 > >
 > >No no. I just think we've redefined the "little languages" as everests
 > >rather than molehills. That scares me.
 > 
 > Luckily, Dave, this is a matter of perception on your part. :) Not that
 > the 
 > concern's not worth having, just that I don't think it's going to be an
 > issue.

I'm starting to get that impression. I feel like:

1. Ok, the car's broken, we're going to have to get it to the service
station. There's one right over there.

2. I find out we have to push it. YIKES. You want to go to the _shell_
station instead??? I can see the shell station sign at the top of the
5000ft 20deg incline hill.

3. I find out we're going to the one at the bottom of the hill instead.
"What? You think we're nuts?"

I think I've gotten stuck is shock somewhere among #2 and #3 there. It's a
total change in what it seemed we were aiming for. If you guys think it's
not overbloated, I've no problem with it. However, I'm still hoping to aim
for ease of user implementation of a "little language". The user community
has always been most of my focus in Perl affairs. I don't care if it's
hard for us, as long as they can be lazy and [whatever the adjectival form
of "hubris" is].

Basically, I can foresee much of the user end of creating a "little
language" the creation of a stored hash of translations (lexeme
translations, not source translations), and probably another one to
identify those lexemes. Is this about the size of it?

BTW, as for the output, I realize the parser doesn't output java byte
code. I was referring to perl as a whole, of course.

p