use Perl

• ipl + tryperl6 (Score:1)

  by frew (9054)

  I think we need to talk more about these issues. Too many perl people seem to be grumpy about this kind of change. It's like when I posted somewhere about andand for perl5. Everyone's answer (mostly) was just "Don't do that!" I think that if we get some kind of ipl going we should go out of our way to make a web based version like _why's tryruby. Imagine telling people about that! Everyone says perl6 is vaporware; but having a web based interpreter would be just so excellent that it might get some mor

  --
  --fREW
  http://blog.afoolishmanifesto.com
  • Re:ipl + tryperl6 (Score:1)

    by masak (6289) on 2009.01.29 3:00 (#67097) Homepage Journal

    I think we need to talk more about these issues. Too many perl people seem to be grumpy about this kind of change.

    I think that's a slight generalization. In the Perl developer community, and in the Perl 6 one in particular, you're more likely to find openness to new ideas than not. At least that's my experience.

    It's like when I posted somewhere about andand for perl5. Everyone's answer (mostly) was just "Don't do that!"

    This one [perlmonks.org]? I think the responses were very helpful, with example code and all. Searching the page gives one "don't", which isn't directed towards you. It might be you're expecting too much Ruby syntax out of Perl 5. :)

    I think that if we get some kind of ipl going we should go out of our way to make a web based version like _why's tryruby. Imagine telling people about that! Everyone says perl6 is vaporware; but having a web based interpreter would be just so excellent that it might get some more interest!

    Here I am able to provide some historical context: there was one just like that at one time, during the heyday of Pugs. (Now-defunct try.pugscode.org [pugscode.org].)

    Yup, we should do it again. It's a swell idea. Tools enabling this are being built as we speak... but AFAIK, no-one is working on a tryperl6 web page right now. (Hint, hint.)

    Also: pugs DOES do what we are talking about, so it shouldn't be too technical of a limitation.

    The mere fact that irb does do what we're talking about is evidence enough that it's not too technical of a limitation. Tene++ has promised to look at the technology necessary in Parrot to support variable survival.

    Reply to This

    Parent

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by frew (9054)

      Glad you agree about ipl.
      
      More on grumpiness: I use the cgiapp framework. In general I think a lot of the wisdom of rails can be used in other web frameworks, even if they aren't as heavy as rails. I recently read a thread about how many actions should be in a controller, how long actions should be, etc.
      
      There were numerous cgiapp people that said that they had 100 actions in their controller, or that their actions were 250 lines long, etc. I think that is a mistake and when new people come in and a

      --
      --fREW
      http://blog.afoolishmanifesto.com