NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
use Perl5; (Score:1)
Seriously am I the only one not looking forward to
many of the new "features" in Perl6?
A lot of almost seems like it's designed expressly
to be not backward compatible (except for -MPerl5)
and to confuse the hell out of experienced persons.
I must say though that
wanted for awhile (seemed wasteful to use ? : ). On the other hand I do use ? : (trinary) a lot;
not just to do
PS> gripping hand
Were that I say, pancakes?
Re:use Perl5; (Score:1)
Yes, I'll have to relearn a lot of Perl syntax. Well worth it to get a cleaner interface. (One of my dearest wishes is for a vastly improved subroutine arg-passing interface).
Yes, it may confuse some experienced people, but remember why you came to Perl inthe first place and see if Perl6 is or is not moreso.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:use Perl5; (Score:1)
loose typing
TMTOWTDI
no forced scope variables...
etc. etc. etc.
And so much of the core things happening for Perl6
seem to be in direct conflict with this.
"I'm smarter than the computer (and hence language) damnit, let me do it *my* way."
Or at least:
"I *think* I'm smarter than the computer damnit,
let me shoot myself in the foot if that's what I really want to do"
AKA
The UN*X philosophy
Were that I say, pancakes?
Re:use Perl5; (Score:1)
I must disagree. The things unveiled so far seem to be if anything much DWIM-ier than previous Perls. For gossakes, why doesn't if ($x work?
--
Trey Harris
Secretary, The System Administrators Guild [sage.org]
Re:use Perl5; (Score:1)
--
Trey Harris
Secretary, The System Administrators Guild [sage.org]