3 ms·

>>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 despi

by 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.
  - TylerE 13y ago
    That's one tiny slice of what LINQ can do. It can also query native objects, XML, CSV files, and a wide variety of web APIs.
    - Mithaldu_ 13y ago
      DBIx can do these things too. Anything you can write a DBI driver for, it can handle.
- berntb 13y ago
  >>That you can build an OO system comparable to what other languages have built-in My explicit point was that it is better [edit: which was an answer to your question about value from flexibility, compared to the cognitive cost], don't do straw man attacks please. (Are you trolling?) Edit: Thanks for the downvote. :-) Edit 2: As answer to the next long, long comment with parts going all over: Of course complexity has costs. if you really just want a good reference on Moose to see exactly what it is, ask Mithaldu. He probably has better sources than me. This is what I give people (it is getting old): http://rjbs.manxome.org/talks/moose/Moose.pdf http://rjbs.manxome.org/talks/moose/Moose.pdf Edit 3: And to avoid being called a "troll" -- don't write shit like "In 2013 nearly every problem has a language more appropriate than Perl." while you acknowledge you don't know the subject...
  - fusiongyro 13y ago
    When someone says two systems are comparable, it is a different claim than that two systems are equivalent. In order for something to be better than something else they have to be comparable. Dynamic typing can be better than static typing only because they're both approaches to typing (please don't confuse this example with an opinion); static typing cannot be better than lexical scope because they're not comparable. We're talking about the cost/benefit of flexibility as evidenced by systems like Moose. It's quite irrelevant to my point whether Moose is better or not, so it is quite a stretch to accuse me of a straw man attack. For that to be the case, I'd have to have said that Moose is worse than (say) Python's OO therefore flexibility is bad and Perl is bad by extension. What I'm actually saying is that flexibility isn't free, it has a cost, and that the cost must be offset by other benefits. If Moose is better, that's a benefit that might outweigh the cost, but nobody seems to be interested in telling me how it's better when they could instead attack the argument, by, for instance, hauling out the well-worn stack of logical fallacy accusations. If I sound irritable, it's only because I start conversations on HN in good faith expecting, you know, a conversation, and these kinds of vitriol-powered slamfests are not what I have in mind. Am I a troll indeed. Edit: One need not know a language to find oneself in a niche where that language might be more appropriate. I didn't mean that remark to offend and I regret my wording. I certainly wasn't out to troll. That said, surely you do not believe one must learn a language inside out before knowing whether it is appropriate to a domain. I know many languages and work in several domains and never find myself thinking Perl would be better. I might not be in the right domains, but if we were having this conversation about C++, Java or Haskell it would be easier to rattle off a few example domains rather than scoff at the question.

by berntb 13y ago

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.
- TylerE 13y ago
  That's one tiny slice of what LINQ can do. It can also query native objects, XML, CSV files, and a wide variety of web APIs.
  - Mithaldu_ 13y ago
    DBIx can do these things too. Anything you can write a DBI driver for, it can handle.
berntb 13y ago
>>That you can build an OO system comparable to what other languages have built-in My explicit point was that it is better [edit: which was an answer to your question about value from flexibility, compared to the cognitive cost], don't do straw man attacks please. (Are you trolling?) Edit: Thanks for the downvote. :-) Edit 2: As answer to the next long, long comment with parts going all over: Of course complexity has costs. if you really just want a good reference on Moose to see exactly what it is, ask Mithaldu. He probably has better sources than me. This is what I give people (it is getting old): http://rjbs.manxome.org/talks/moose/Moose.pdf http://rjbs.manxome.org/talks/moose/Moose.pdf Edit 3: And to avoid being called a "troll" -- don't write shit like "In 2013 nearly every problem has a language more appropriate than Perl." while you acknowledge you don't know the subject...
- fusiongyro 13y ago
  When someone says two systems are comparable, it is a different claim than that two systems are equivalent. In order for something to be better than something else they have to be comparable. Dynamic typing can be better than static typing only because they're both approaches to typing (please don't confuse this example with an opinion); static typing cannot be better than lexical scope because they're not comparable. We're talking about the cost/benefit of flexibility as evidenced by systems like Moose. It's quite irrelevant to my point whether Moose is better or not, so it is quite a stretch to accuse me of a straw man attack. For that to be the case, I'd have to have said that Moose is worse than (say) Python's OO therefore flexibility is bad and Perl is bad by extension. What I'm actually saying is that flexibility isn't free, it has a cost, and that the cost must be offset by other benefits. If Moose is better, that's a benefit that might outweigh the cost, but nobody seems to be interested in telling me how it's better when they could instead attack the argument, by, for instance, hauling out the well-worn stack of logical fallacy accusations. If I sound irritable, it's only because I start conversations on HN in good faith expecting, you know, a conversation, and these kinds of vitriol-powered slamfests are not what I have in mind. Am I a troll indeed. Edit: One need not know a language to find oneself in a niche where that language might be more appropriate. I didn't mean that remark to offend and I regret my wording. I certainly wasn't out to troll. That said, surely you do not believe one must learn a language inside out before knowing whether it is appropriate to a domain. I know many languages and work in several domains and never find myself thinking Perl would be better. I might not be in the right domains, but if we were having this conversation about C++, Java or Haskell it would be easier to rattle off a few example domains rather than scoff at the question.