At 03:07 PM 8/22/2001 -0400, Andrew Kuchling wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 11:44:36AM -0700, David Ascher wrote:
which would automatically translate 95% of Perl5 code to Perl6: "If we're smart enough to write Perl5, we can do this". I think it glosses
<snicker> "We let our code base deteroriate into an incomprehensible mess of code, and damn it, we can do it again!"
Now, now, let's not throw stones. :)
*Yes*. That's mostly why I've been drifting away from python-dev, too; the core is becoming more and more dull, the new features are more and more esoteric, and the more interesting action is in Python-based applications and libraries. As a bonus, if I work on a standalone package, I don't need to worry if a change is going to screw up the X thousands of Python users; only the much smaller pool of users of the package is at risk, and it's easier to decide to break things or provide backwards compatibility.
Is this a bad thing, though? C's not changed much in the past decade or two, but look at how much more canned functionality's available now than in, say, 1980. (Heck, add Perl, Python, and Ruby to the list of C's canned functionality if you like) Dan --------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai dan@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk