RE: Perl, the new generation

We are definitely not on the same thread.

I don't believe that this discussion should go away, but I do believe it
should fork appropriately. We're talking about several things at once and
it's confusing the issues. See off list remarks.


David T. Grove
Blue Square Group
[email protected]
[email protected]


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Storrs [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 6:01 PM
> To: Nathan Torkington
> Cc: Simon Cozens; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Perl, the new generation
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2001, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>
> > Dave Storrs writes:
> > > < SARCASM=EXTREME>
> >
> > Everyone, please try to stop the downhill descent of the conversation.
> > This is not just Dave, but others in the thread too.
>
> 	For the record, the original post in this sequence came from David
> Grove, not from me (David Storrs).  My response to David was an attempt at
> *preventing* a downhill descent...which is why Simon's comment, which came
> off feeling abrasive to me, bothered me.  You're right; I should have
> refrained from sarcasm and simply asked Simon to please not treat my
> concerns so dismissively.
>
>
> > It sounds like the concern is that each new version of Perl adds
> > features, which programmers use.  To be able to maintain or extend
> > code, you need to know those features.  Thus, the core knowledge for
> > survival in Perl, is ever-growing.
>
> 	This is what I understood to be David Grove's point (David, please
> correct me if I have misunderstood).  I don't know if I agree with this (I
> also may not have the background to answer it, since I didn't come on
> until 5.x), but I do feel, as I said before, that the language is
> sufficently large that it is hard to hold in one's head and that making it
> significantly larger would be a cause for concern.  Other people may
> disagree with me on this; it's only my opinion.
>
>
> > In some ways I agree with this.  In particular, the growing number of
> > modules with an OO interface means that knowing how to use objects is
> > more and more important.
>
> 	This is true, but it could be taken as a counterargument...if
> there is a growing number of OO modules, that is because a growing number
> of Perl programmers are accustomed to, and make use of, OO techniques.
>
>
> [single programmer doesn't need advanced features, teams are not used for
> solving small problems so it is reasonable that they need advanced stuff]
> > So I guess I don't see it as that big a problem.  Am I missing
> > something?
>
> 	Well...I'm not sure my concerns are well enough defined to be
> convincing, but I'll try to lay them out:
>
> 	1) One of the great strengths of Perl is that its learning curve
> is very shallow but very long.  Adding more stuff to the language makes
> the curve steeper, because you need to hold more in your head as you learn
> it.
>
> 	2) If the language is so big that you can't hold all of its
> features in your head, then those extra features might as well not exist.
>
>
> 	Now, after all of the above discussion, I should just say that I'm
> not convinced that Perl is too big (I think it's _big_, which is different
> from _too_ big), or that anything that we are adding is going to _make_ it
> too big.  I'm simply trying to point out one side of the argument.
>
> 		Dave Storrs
>