Re:OT: question about hyper operators.
on
Parrot Updates
·
· Score: 1
Perl is evolving. The introduction of the hyper
operators is an incremental change from the status
quo. If they work out as well as they seem to,
there's no reason why people won't be able to
experiment with, and then propose for adoption,
more general versions.
On the other hand, every system for denoting
iteration and recursion eventually runs out of
steam; it's just a question of how soon. So I
don't think it's a problem that K goes further
than Perl; remember that K may be intended
for great things, but Perl has already achieved
great things, and you don't want to kill the baby
while trying to improve its training...
There is heavy competition for programmers among
open source projects. But the product of the work
has zero incremental cost of distribution.
Therefore, users are free but programmers must
be lured and kept. Without users a project can
continue -- for a while, at least, or if the goals
of the programmers don't require users -- but
without programmers, the project will die.
Many people make the mistake of assuming that
if the software is free for users then everything
about it is free. Nothing could be further from
the truth.
... back when VA was a hardware company with Linux as a differentiator. The technicians at VA could have done such a good job supporting Linux on anything IBM builds.... Sadly, it seems even the management -- nay, especially the management -- never really understood that VA's hardware business had to pay the bills for the short and medium term.
SIGH Two years ago, I could have worked at either Red Hat or VA. I chose VA because they had a proven business model: selling computers. Too bad VA couldn't make money on them! Now VA is just Red Hat without the name recognition.
I'm really embarrassed that after carefully checking every paragraph of my essay, I got the author's name wrong! sigh I got it right when I posted to Kuro5hin.org. When the Slashdot article didn't show up for so long, I figured there was no point in sending a correction to Slashdot editors. Silly me.
But as long as someone posted the correction, that's good enough for the readers.:-)
Actually, the main problem with my Topaz project
was that I was limited to reimplenting the same
old Perl language, because only Larry can think
like a Perl language designer, and I'm not Larry. I'm very, very
glad that Larry is revisiting the design of the
language, because that needed doing too.
And with the language changing, maybe we can get
away from reference counting, and then there
won't be any need for the C++ features that led
me down that path in the first place.
Yes, I'm quite concerned about the possibility, nay, inevitability of Perl 6 breaking Perl 5 code. A standard would be helpful. But a standard would take too long to draft to help with the 5->6 transition, unless it were begun now.
"C makes it easy for you to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes that harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg." -- Bjarne Stroustrup
"Programmers are smart people. They are engaged in challenging tasks and need all the help they can get from a programming language as well as from other supporting tools and techniques. Trying to seriously constrain programmers to do "only what is right" is inherently wrongheaded and will fail. Programmers will find a way around rules and restrictions they find unacceptable. The language should support a range of reasonable design and programming styles rather than try to force people into adopting a single notion.
"I am well aware that not everyone appreciates choice and variety. However, people who prefer a more restrictive environment can impose one through style rules in C++ or choose a language designed to provide the programmer with a smaller set of alternatives." -- Bjarne Stroustrup
Several aspects of C++ require that the same information be typed (or cut & pasted) several times. For example:
Constructor and destructor names are textually the same as their class names. This redundancy could have been eliminated if constructors and destructors had special names. (You used the special-name approach with operator new and operator delete.)
Function definitions and declarations of virtual function overrides must restate their return types and parameter lists, even when just the function name would be enough.
IBM knows the value of a good keyboard. I'll never buy any laptop that doesn't let me touch-type at full speed (100wpm).
There are only two manufacturers that put adequate emphasis on good keyboards: IBM and Compaq. IBM has the TrackPoint; Compaq has a touchpad.
IBM wins.
I bought a 765D refurbished, and my wife still uses it. (P133? who cares, it's 1024x768.) My employer bought me a 570. YUM.
Granted it's a pain not to be able to use the built-in modem. But 56K PCMCIA modems are plentiful. Don't let details like that stop you from considering the parts of the hardware that you actually touch and manipulate.
I'm truly amazed that the comments so far seem to have ignored Perl's primary advantage in CGI programming: Taint mode.
In taint mode, Perl does data flow analysis, tracking what data either come from or are influenced by outside, untrusted ("tainted") data like environment variables and file contents--thus CGI form data. And any attempt to use tainted data to create files or spawn processes is automatically prevented.
Other languages could have taint modes, but they don't. So I recommend using only Perl for CGI.
I'm gratified that Topaz has captured the imaginations and enthusiasms of so many slashdotters. But the timing of this story was very unfortunate.
You see, I'm in the middle of a cross-country move, having just been hired by VA Linux Systems, and my net access this week is probably the worst it's been for five years. Right now I'm in a borrowed office at an Alabama rest stop.
I will review everyone's comments and do my best to respond to them--and to work on the code! But please be patient while I settle into Geek Country. Just the culture shock will probably set me back for a day or two.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, every system for denoting iteration and recursion eventually runs out of steam; it's just a question of how soon. So I don't think it's a problem that K goes further than Perl; remember that K may be intended for great things, but Perl has already achieved great things, and you don't want to kill the baby while trying to improve its training...
... which makes me wonder why they took SOOO long to finally support DDR with their P4 chipsets.
Therefore, users are free but programmers must be lured and kept. Without users a project can continue -- for a while, at least, or if the goals of the programmers don't require users -- but without programmers, the project will die.
Many people make the mistake of assuming that if the software is free for users then everything about it is free. Nothing could be further from the truth.
RMS is an orphan? Suddenly The Legacy Of Heorot is an allegory for Open Source....
SIGH Two years ago, I could have worked at either Red Hat or VA. I chose VA because they had a proven business model: selling computers. Too bad VA couldn't make money on them! Now VA is just Red Hat without the name recognition.
But as long as someone posted the correction, that's good enough for the readers. :-)
And with the language changing, maybe we can get away from reference counting, and then there won't be any need for the C++ features that led me down that path in the first place.
PS: There are no 't's in my name.
In contrast, there's lots of activity over at LinuxBIOS.
Volunteers?
I even wonder about how ``innovative'' it is to rewrite Python now that Perl is being rewritten.
That's a Nixon-ism from Watergate. My opinion of SCO went down a few points when I saw that they let that get into an official statement.
-- Bjarne Stroustrup
"Programmers are smart people. They are engaged in challenging tasks and need all the help they can get from a programming language as well as from other supporting tools and techniques. Trying to seriously constrain programmers to do "only what is right" is inherently wrongheaded and will fail. Programmers will find a way around rules and restrictions they find unacceptable. The language should support a range of reasonable design and programming styles rather than try to force people into adopting a single notion.
"I am well aware that not everyone appreciates choice and variety. However, people who prefer a more restrictive environment can impose one through style rules in C++ or choose a language designed to provide the programmer with a smaller set of alternatives."
-- Bjarne Stroustrup
I'm betting on "Anyone But Rambus".
If Intel continues to tie their fortunes to Rambus, they're in for lots of serious pain.
Is this redundancy a bug or a feature? And, why?
There are only two manufacturers that put adequate emphasis on good keyboards: IBM and Compaq. IBM has the TrackPoint; Compaq has a touchpad.
IBM wins.
I bought a 765D refurbished, and my wife still uses it. (P133? who cares, it's 1024x768.) My employer bought me a 570. YUM.
Granted it's a pain not to be able to use the built-in modem. But 56K PCMCIA modems are plentiful. Don't let details like that stop you from considering the parts of the hardware that you actually touch and manipulate.
Inflatable heat shield for aerobraking.
Science Fiction -> Science Fact.
(Or it could be totally different, but I can't read the referenced site; either it's slashdotted or it requires JavaScript.)
Oh, yeah, they really get Usenet. Right.
Boy, I can hardly remember the last time a service provider delivered such a stark self-LART.
Likewise, since @Home is not enforcing an adequate level of order, their communication privileges are suspended.
It's just a matter of self-defense.
PS: I'm an @Home customer, and I'm GLAD that the UDP is in force. Maybe it'll finally get @Home abuse to DO something.
``Is that a Timna processor?'' ``SQUAWK!''
Home Row.
And TrackPoints don't have that irritating accidental-thumb-drop problem that plagues touch pads.
IBM input hardware kicks butt. Again.
In taint mode, Perl does data flow analysis, tracking what data either come from or are influenced by outside, untrusted ("tainted") data like environment variables and file contents--thus CGI form data. And any attempt to use tainted data to create files or spawn processes is automatically prevented.
Other languages could have taint modes, but they don't. So I recommend using only Perl for CGI.
You see, I'm in the middle of a cross-country move, having just been hired by VA Linux Systems, and my net access this week is probably the worst it's been for five years. Right now I'm in a borrowed office at an Alabama rest stop.
I will review everyone's comments and do my best to respond to them--and to work on the code! But please be patient while I settle into Geek Country. Just the culture shock will probably set me back for a day or two. :-)
``It should be illegal to yell `Y2K' in a crowded economy.''
Wasn't that from A Deepness In The Sky?
Meanwhile, I'm keeping the pumpkin-fires burning for 5.004 and 5.005 maintenance.