4 ms·

> I've yet to hear a single compelling reason for why I should use Perl 6 over anything else. At any point, did someone promise you this? > The blog post its

> I've yet to hear a single compelling reason for why I should use Perl 6 over anything else. At any point, did someone promise you this? > The blog post itself is saying "you don't need a why", A refreshing proposition! It's honest that the decision is arbitrary in most cases. > It's not enough for Perl 6 to exist, for me to invest time I need to know what the point of that time investment is. I say this respectfully: within this limited context I don't think anyone cares about the whats compared to the why. EDIT: Since you're dramatically editing the content: > c -> it maps to the machine well This is ridiculous. C doesn't map well to the hardware at all. It maps well to the primitives the OS's interfaces were written in, not the machine. > The languages that all become rarely visited niches all have one thing in common: they don't have a compelling use case. As I've suggested elsewhere, I think this is a reductive view. > They always say "all use cases", but frankly, anything that tries to be everything to everyone almost always ends up not being particularly compelling to any one group. Why not? Python's strategy seems pretty close to this (only with a promise of mediocre results).

overgard 7y ago
>> I've yet to hear a single compelling reason for why I should use Perl 6 over anything else. > At any point, did someone promise you this? Of course not. and I'm not disappointed or betrayed. I'm just, um, not going to use it. Presumably they would prefer that I (in an impersonal sense) did use it, and I am unconvinced. > > The blog post itself is saying "you don't need a why", > A refreshing proposition! It's honest that the decision is arbitrary in most cases. Huh? On almost any successful project, the choice of something as important as the language isn't arbitrary at all. The choice between, I don't know, Ruby and Python might be arbitrary, but it's still bounded by constraints of what domain they operate in. Nobody in their right mind is saying "whatever lets just use J and APL for our OS kernel". If their argument is "use Perl 6 because, it doesn't matter anyway and it's 70 degrees outside and the sky is purple today" I don't think they're going to win many converts. > This is ridiculous. C doesn't map well to the hardware at all. It maps well to the primitives the OS's interfaces were written in, not the machine. I mean, it originally did when it was invented 40 yearsish ago. It was colloquially called a "portable assembler" for a reason. It's still a lot closer to hardware than most other languages. Even assembler doesn't really map to what hardware does anymore. So it goes. The point is that there's a reason why you'd use C. > > The languages that all become rarely visited niches all have one thing in common: they don't have a compelling use case. > As I've suggested elsewhere, I think this is a reductive view. I mean, ok, but "reductive view" doesn't mean anything to me.

overgard 7y ago

>> I've yet to hear a single compelling reason for why I should use Perl 6 over anything else. > At any point, did someone promise you this? Of course not. and I'm not disappointed or betrayed. I'm just, um, not going to use it. Presumably they would prefer that I (in an impersonal sense) did use it, and I am unconvinced. > > The blog post itself is saying "you don't need a why", > A refreshing proposition! It's honest that the decision is arbitrary in most cases. Huh? On almost any successful project, the choice of something as important as the language isn't arbitrary at all. The choice between, I don't know, Ruby and Python might be arbitrary, but it's still bounded by constraints of what domain they operate in. Nobody in their right mind is saying "whatever lets just use J and APL for our OS kernel". If their argument is "use Perl 6 because, it doesn't matter anyway and it's 70 degrees outside and the sky is purple today" I don't think they're going to win many converts. > This is ridiculous. C doesn't map well to the hardware at all. It maps well to the primitives the OS's interfaces were written in, not the machine. I mean, it originally did when it was invented 40 yearsish ago. It was colloquially called a "portable assembler" for a reason. It's still a lot closer to hardware than most other languages. Even assembler doesn't really map to what hardware does anymore. So it goes. The point is that there's a reason why you'd use C. > > The languages that all become rarely visited niches all have one thing in common: they don't have a compelling use case. > As I've suggested elsewhere, I think this is a reductive view. I mean, ok, but "reductive view" doesn't mean anything to me.