Re: Now, to try again...

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:

> 
> Andy Dougherty <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>  > The issues of 'use Python' or 'use Pythonish' are a quite different
> issue.
>  > I don't think anyone believes it ought to be easy to *write* the
> Pythonish
>  > module.
> 
> I do.

> That's the problem. This is a nearly ubiquitously desired objective
> (writing the modules or whatever they are), but I have the fear that
> actually writing one will be so undaunting that it will be a seldom-used
> feature, or one that will be as often avoided as complex perl OOP (beyond
> the basics), provided only by the highest levels of perl mastery.

I think you misunderstand.  I think it should be very easy to *use* a
hypothetical Pythonish module.  I don't expect it will be very easy to
create it, and I don't see it as worthwhile to expend a disproportionate
amount of effort in that direction.

In another message, you write ...

> I also admit that I would, on a purely personal-bias level, prefer not
> to
> cast too much support in the direction of Python, Java, C#, or ASP at

which also seems to aruge for not working too too hard to make it easy to
write the Pythonish module.

I think one or both of us is confused.

>  I don't
> see these little languages as Perl features, but as programmer features,

I don't see Python or Java as a "little language".  Perhaps that's the
source of the confusion.  I see a whole spectrum of "languages" one might
want to feed to perl6.  Easy ones ("little languages") should be easy.
Hard ones (e.g. Tcl, Python) should be possible.  In-between-ones should
be in between.

-- 
    Andy Dougherty		[email protected]
    Dept. of Physics
    Lafayette College, Easton PA 18042