Exegesis 6 (Perl 6 Subroutines) Released

chromatic writes "Perl.com has just published Damian Conway's Exegesis 6 which gives practical examples demonstrating how to use the new subroutine and method semantics in Perl 6. This is the companion to Larry Wall's Apocalypse 6 which discussed the changes planned for subroutines in Perl 6."

Comments

Keywords

[Gortbusters.org]

The one thing that I always found unpleasant when moving between languages was the keywords... so, I picked up a C book, migrated to C++, then Java, picked up PHP along the way. Everything was fairly similar with keywords and syntax, and then perl threw a monkey wrench into the mix. I've never looked at python, are there similarities there or are the perl gurus guiding us through their path of enlightenment?

Any Sufficiently Advanced Language...

[Vagary]

A disclaimer: I used to program Perl for a living, but we had a falling out some years ago (around 5.0?). So if you don't think there's any merit to what I'm saying, then feel free to consider this a troll:

Shortly after I started reading Exegesis 6 I was somewhat frightened by how complex Perl had become since I stopped keeping track of updates. Of course scripting languages have always been known for borrowing the best from other programming languages, so I kept reading in the hopes that I'd recognise something. I saw some features like the is constant declaration and started worrying that maybe they'd decided to borrow some features from the very popular but insanely evil Visual Basic. But then I saw this:

type Selector ::= Code | Class | Rule | Hash;

and realised that, just as Python is (alleged to be?) adding Lisp-like features, Perl is adding ML-like features! That line above is (minus the '::' and ';') straight out of a Haskell program. Then I started to notice more Haskell-like syntax:

• Anonymous function declaration syntax: -> $animal { $animal.size < $breadbox } would be (\animal -> animal.size < breadbox) in Haskell
• Multisubs are like pattern matching: multi sub feed(Cat $c) {...} multi sub feed(Lion $l) {...} would be
  feed (Cat c) = ...
  feed (Lion l) = ...
• New infix operator definitions: infix:~|_|~ would be the function named (~|_|~)
• Junctions are like list comprehensions: all(newvals) would be [x | x <- newvals] (it almost seems like junctions are lazy from the way Damian talks about them?!)

And I'm sure a more thorough reading would turn up even more. (For example, the smart-match operator reminds me of the type inferences done in a Hindley-Milner type system.) So it appears that any sufficiently advanced language contains an implementation of a purely functional language, not specifically Scheme. :) Has Damian (who certainly has Haskell exposure) or Larry ever mentioned any of these influences?

The World Needs Idealised Perl

[Vagary]

In the denotational semantics community it was long ago decided that real programming languages are too messy and too much of moving targets for serious theoretical research. As a result, the most popular language is known as Idealised Algol which is a simplified and cleaned-up version of Algol-60 (I'm told Algol-W is the closest implementation).

Now that Perl 6 has a rich operator definition system*, we can look forward to Idealised Perl (IP). IP would be a version of Perl stripped down to only the necessary syntactic building-blocks. Even if much of Perl 6 were implemented in C, it'd be possible to define all the syntax in terms of IP. If you're writing code for maintainability instead of prototyping, using IP as much as possible will ensure a smaller learning curve for non-gurus. IP will be simple enough to actually allow teaching Perl in universities.

IP could be the elegant yet expressive language we all (whether we like Perl or not) wish Perl would be.

* This is, IMO, the only really neat and elegant thing to come out of Perl 6 so far. If operators can be defined to the point where most mathematical formulae are executable, Perl will become a revolutionary tool.

Re:seems like

[Angst Badger]

Even coming from C, Perl syntax is unnatural. Seems like once you go Perl, you can never go back (or try to learn a new language).

I came from C (not that I exactly left it) and I didn't find Perl unnatural, and it hasn't crippled me for other purposes, unless you count involuntarily prepending '$' to variable names in C after a long session of Perl coding. As far as I am concerned, there are only three major problems with Perl:

1. Type sigils. The underlying theory necessary to implement variables without special leading characters dates back, oh, thirty years or so. (This is particularly egregious with PHP, where there is only one generic sigil for all types rendering them pointless anyway, but that's a separate gripe.) The '$' notation for shell scripts existed to simplify the ad hoc parsers most shells use; it has no place in a full-blown language.

2. Complex data structures. Even C syntax for deeply nested pointers is cleaner than Perl. Mostly because of 1, above.

3. Writing large applications in Perl depends totally on intense self-discipline as a programmer, and everything about Perl actively encourages you to break that discipline. TMTOWTDI, past a certain point, is a liability, especially with large development teams.

Obviously, Larry and Co. feel differently about these things, but they drive me up the fnarking wall.

I think if I went to hell, satan would probably make me write a Perl parser. (without the help of Yacc)

If Satan really wanted to put the screws to you, he'd require yacc. (The inside joke, for those who aren't deeply into compiler design, is that Perl can't be parsed by a yacc parser because it's not even remotely context-free. Whether that's a good idea or not is a debate that goes back to the days of the ALGOL design committee. The practical effect is that the syntax of Perl is described not by a formal grammar but by the implementation itself, which makes it all but impossible to validate a competing implementation.)