4 ms·

> Moe is an attempt to show a way forward, not be a way forward. I can certainly appreciate the desire to make something fun, either for your personal edificat

> Moe is an attempt to show a way forward, not be a way forward. I can certainly appreciate the desire to make something fun, either for your personal edification, or to try to engage the constructive aspect of your community, I have to wonder: is there enough manpower left in the Perl community to handle all five-six of these revitalization efforts, while also continuing the march to Perl 6 and maintaining 25 years of backwards compatibility? The analogy to Detroit really couldn't be more apt. In 1998 Perl had a substantial portion of all programmers simply because it was the best free tool for a wide range of jobs. In 2013 nearly every problem has a language more appropriate than Perl. You don't have a captive audience anymore. These days, almost every language is marginal and makes a living by cultivating a small but fanatical base. In order to play the new game, Perl has to find a new pitch, and "we finally work like real modern programming languages" is pretty weak. There are thousands of languages with real object systems, real exceptions, real functions, etc. Until Perl throws its weight behind something more interesting and substantial than "backwards compatibility with filth" and "someday, it might be nicer" it can expect the current trend of net emigration and a Detroit-like heat death to continue.

Mithaldu 13y ago
> In 2013 nearly every problem has a language more appropriate than Perl. Citation needed. Seriously, please stop making such broad statements based on your feelings and opinions and instead please make an earnest effort to separate objective facts from your subjective perception. And just to address another point: Perl has multiple real object systems that are inter-compatible (with one small exception), and are considerably more powerful than the OO of Ruby or Python. The only real complaint you can level against Perl is that they need to be installed from CPAN; which is not a very useful complaint since all the useful bits in Perl need to be installed from CPAN anyway.
- fusiongyro 13y ago
  I'd say the onus is on Perl to be the best language for a niche, rather than on me to provide a list of niches with languages better than Perl. Besides that, language appropriateness is necessarily subjective. I love Prolog and Haskell and use them all the time. My passion for them makes their thorns seem small and easily avoided, but the reality is that those thorns are sufficient to keep out a lot of curious people. I didn't really figure out how to write a Prolog program that handled command line arguments until a month ago. Prior to that, I would just run Prolog, consult my script and run my function. Simple enough barrier, but one that would have kept most of my friends away. I think you took my "real X, Y, Z" list as a literal insult, which isn't what I meant. I don't know Perl. I was just referencing the presentation, not trying to sling arrows at Moose or whatever. I do think that providing multiple options where most languages have one option built-in is unnecessary cognitive load. One doesn't "choose" an "object system" for Python--what benefit would one hope to gain? That the options are compatible is nice, but it's indisputably more work for everyone than just having one. Having what are essentially language built-ins elsewhere available instead on CPAN is worth complaining about, because if you're going to do things differently from others, the difference should be motivated by something. That something in Perl is backwards compatibility and the desire to provide lots of options. The former is an explanation, not a rationale, and the latter implies, again, a cognitive cost. When you spend my attention and brain power, I had better get something in return. "Options" are only worth something if the alternatives are worth choosing between. In the case of OO, complete intercompatibility between them suggests the differences are minor; in that case, why have them?
  - berntb 13y ago
    >>I do think that providing multiple options where most languages have one option built-in is unnecessary cognitive load. (I'll assume you're not a troll despite acknowledging that you talk about a subject you don't know.) You are seriously arguing against flexibility and configurability of your programming environment? I guess you don't like Lisp either? To answer your specific point, re OO system: Today the de-facto Perl OO system (Moose with relatives) is better than the alternatives among other scripting languages. Without language extensibility, that wouldn't have happened. Exactly where the optimum is for sizes of std libs can and should be discussed. IMHO, after a few work years, a week or two extra to learn an environment is worth it when you get things like Moose. YMMV, but since you acknowledge that you don't know the environment, well...
    - fusiongyro 13y ago
      I'm arguing that flexibility has a cost, and unless you can show me a tangible benefit, it's unnecessary cost. That you can build an OO system comparable to what other languages have built-in is a compelling demonstration of the extent of the flexibility, but it isn't a compelling demonstration of the need for the flexibility. Surely you have better examples of the extensibility of the language than stealing well-understood ideas from other languages. The best time to bring those out would be when wooing new users. In other words, your Prolog-style unification engine, your LINQ, your dependent-typing system, etc. would be better demonstrations of the vitality and power of your language's flexibility and extensibility than things I get for free by typing "python" at my shell prompt.
      - Mithaldu 13y ago
        > comparable Not comparable. Better. > your LINQ DBIx::Class. I don't want to go to the effort of going into massive detail here, but in short: It allows you to write SQL access code under which you can use ANY database (SQLite, MySQL, MSSQL, Postgres, what have you), without changing a single line of your code. It will not only deploy your schema onto the database server, but also optimize your queries, so that for anything of slight complexity, it will likely be faster than your hand-written queries.

Mithaldu 13y ago

> In 2013 nearly every problem has a language more appropriate than Perl. Citation needed. Seriously, please stop making such broad statements based on your feelings and opinions and instead please make an earnest effort to separate objective facts from your subjective perception. And just to address another point: Perl has multiple real object systems that are inter-compatible (with one small exception), and are considerably more powerful than the OO of Ruby or Python. The only real complaint you can level against Perl is that they need to be installed from CPAN; which is not a very useful complaint since all the useful bits in Perl need to be installed from CPAN anyway.

fusiongyro 13y ago
I'd say the onus is on Perl to be the best language for a niche, rather than on me to provide a list of niches with languages better than Perl. Besides that, language appropriateness is necessarily subjective. I love Prolog and Haskell and use them all the time. My passion for them makes their thorns seem small and easily avoided, but the reality is that those thorns are sufficient to keep out a lot of curious people. I didn't really figure out how to write a Prolog program that handled command line arguments until a month ago. Prior to that, I would just run Prolog, consult my script and run my function. Simple enough barrier, but one that would have kept most of my friends away. I think you took my "real X, Y, Z" list as a literal insult, which isn't what I meant. I don't know Perl. I was just referencing the presentation, not trying to sling arrows at Moose or whatever. I do think that providing multiple options where most languages have one option built-in is unnecessary cognitive load. One doesn't "choose" an "object system" for Python--what benefit would one hope to gain? That the options are compatible is nice, but it's indisputably more work for everyone than just having one. Having what are essentially language built-ins elsewhere available instead on CPAN is worth complaining about, because if you're going to do things differently from others, the difference should be motivated by something. That something in Perl is backwards compatibility and the desire to provide lots of options. The former is an explanation, not a rationale, and the latter implies, again, a cognitive cost. When you spend my attention and brain power, I had better get something in return. "Options" are only worth something if the alternatives are worth choosing between. In the case of OO, complete intercompatibility between them suggests the differences are minor; in that case, why have them?
- berntb 13y ago
  >>I do think that providing multiple options where most languages have one option built-in is unnecessary cognitive load. (I'll assume you're not a troll despite acknowledging that you talk about a subject you don't know.) You are seriously arguing against flexibility and configurability of your programming environment? I guess you don't like Lisp either? To answer your specific point, re OO system: Today the de-facto Perl OO system (Moose with relatives) is better than the alternatives among other scripting languages. Without language extensibility, that wouldn't have happened. Exactly where the optimum is for sizes of std libs can and should be discussed. IMHO, after a few work years, a week or two extra to learn an environment is worth it when you get things like Moose. YMMV, but since you acknowledge that you don't know the environment, well...
  - fusiongyro 13y ago
    I'm arguing that flexibility has a cost, and unless you can show me a tangible benefit, it's unnecessary cost. That you can build an OO system comparable to what other languages have built-in is a compelling demonstration of the extent of the flexibility, but it isn't a compelling demonstration of the need for the flexibility. Surely you have better examples of the extensibility of the language than stealing well-understood ideas from other languages. The best time to bring those out would be when wooing new users. In other words, your Prolog-style unification engine, your LINQ, your dependent-typing system, etc. would be better demonstrations of the vitality and power of your language's flexibility and extensibility than things I get for free by typing "python" at my shell prompt.
    - Mithaldu 13y ago
      > comparable Not comparable. Better. > your LINQ DBIx::Class. I don't want to go to the effort of going into massive detail here, but in short: It allows you to write SQL access code under which you can use ANY database (SQLite, MySQL, MSSQL, Postgres, what have you), without changing a single line of your code. It will not only deploy your schema onto the database server, but also optimize your queries, so that for anything of slight complexity, it will likely be faster than your hand-written queries.