Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
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

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I see the point of over-rigid staticness, but I think the too formal for Perl is a strange judgement; formalism is inevitable if we are to manipulate more than nine things at once.

    I wonder if you mean "too formal" as "requiring too much explicit annotation from the user", as in forcing people to think about it too much. If so, maybe it needs yet more ergonomic engineering, also known as sugar... :-)

    • The "too formal" comment came from talking with Stevan about the metamodel and remembering Smalltalk. But "formal" was the wrong word[1]. However, I'm convincing myself that theory.pod is a level above the "bless" semantics that we know and love, and can in fact cooperate nicely with it. theory.pod defines a type system, not an object system.

      See my reply to Ovids comment for a more rambly version of this answer.

      [1] Certainly. The whole reason I study mathematics is because of its incredible ability to squash ambiguous or incomplete thought, and that's all due to its formal treatment. Whenever I describe a problem to my mathematical side, I redefine and redefine my terms until I am in precise, unambiguous mathematical language. And many times, once I state the problem that way, the solution becomes obvious. This is the beauty of formalism.