Mailing List Archive

FYI: Perl 6, Topaz, and exploding kidneys
as reported on slashdot:
http://www.perl.com/pub/1999/09/topaz.html

(topaz is also the code name for our "rewrite
Tkinter in Python", but that's another story ;-)

</F>
Re: FYI: Perl 6, Topaz, and exploding kidneys [ In reply to ]
>>>>> "FL" == Fredrik Lundh <fredrik@pythonware.com> writes:

FL> as reported on slashdot:
FL> http://www.perl.com/pub/1999/09/topaz.html

FL> (topaz is also the code name for our "rewrite
FL> Tkinter in Python", but that's another story ;-)

Here's an interesting quote:

When I was trying to figure out how to be persuasive on this
subject, I finally realized that Perl may be competing with Java
in the problem space, but when you're writing Perl, implementing
the Perl runtime, really what you're doing is something equivalent
to writing a JVM. You're writing the equivalent of a Java Virtual
Machine. Now, would you write a JVM in Eiffel? I don't think
so. No, so neither would you write the Perl runtime in Java or in
Eiffel.

In the context of Python, I disagree that it competes against Java;
Python makes a nice complement to Java. And I obviously also think it
makes perfect sense to write (a) Python runtime in Java, as JimH has
so effectively proven.

Another interesting tidbit we've addressed here:

Was the syntax appropriate for declaring variables to give
appropriate hints to a hypothetical compiler? That is to say MY
INT $X or MY STR $Y -- and I thought that the INT and the STR and
the NUM should be suffixes, something like MY $X:NUM-and, in fact,
that suffix syntax is something that Larry officially has blessed,
but just not for this purpose.

-Barry
Re: FYI: Perl 6, Topaz, and exploding kidneys [ In reply to ]
On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:

> Another interesting tidbit we've addressed here:
>
> Was the syntax appropriate for declaring variables to give
> appropriate hints to a hypothetical compiler? That is to say MY
> INT $X or MY STR $Y -- and I thought that the INT and the STR and
> the NUM should be suffixes, something like MY $X:NUM-and, in fact,
> that suffix syntax is something that Larry officially has blessed,
> but just not for this purpose.

What struck me about that paragraph is that if I understand the comment
correctly, Larry is choosing a mapping from a specific syntax to some
purpose (unspecified in the excerpt) while an otherwise well-informed Perl
user (Chip) 'naturally' wanted to map said syntax to a different
semantics. When this happens in Python-land, Guido says "nope, neither".

--david