Author |
Message |
theglau.. #1 / 213
|
Perl becoming Lispier
Here are Larry Wall's musings on the future of Perl, in case you're interested in this kind of thing:
It looks like Perl 6 is going to have dynamic and static types like Common Lisp. glauber ----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web ----- http://www.*-*-*.com/ ,000+ groups NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
|
Wed, 06 Aug 2003 05:38:50 GMT |
|
|
Marco Antoniott #2 / 213
|
Perl becoming Lispier
Quote:
> Here are Larry Wall's musings on the future of Perl, in case you're > interested in this kind of thing:
> It looks like Perl 6 is going to have dynamic and static types like Common > Lisp.
Just to quote out of context. I think ugly can be beautiful, and that beautiful can get ugly real quick. I think in particular of Lisp, which is the most beautiful language in the world, and every program in Lisp is real ugly. Cheers -- Marco Antoniotti ======================================================== NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488 719 Broadway 12th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122 New York, NY 10003, USA http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu Like DNA, such a language [Lisp] does not go out of style. Paul Graham, ANSI Common Lisp
|
Wed, 06 Aug 2003 06:41:05 GMT |
|
|
Christian Lynbec #3 / 213
|
Perl becoming Lispier
Quote:
>> Here are Larry Wall's musings on the future of Perl, in case you're
Marco> Just to quote out of context. Marco> I think ugly can be beautiful, and that beautiful can get ugly real Marco> quick. I think in particular of Lisp, which is the most beautiful Marco> language in the world, and every program in Lisp is real ugly. A former colleague, knowing my fancy for Lisp, used to cite the following Larry Wall quote (this is from memory, with the usual bunch of disclaimers): Lisp programs has all the appeal of toe-nail clippings in a bowl of soup. Somehow it seems that Larry has a real problem with Lisp syntax. ------------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Christian Lynbech | Ericsson Telebit, Skanderborgvej 232, DK-8260 Viby J
Fax: +45 8938 5101 | web: www.ericsson.com ------------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual.
|
Fri, 08 Aug 2003 23:32:50 GMT |
|
|
Aaron Kushne #4 / 213
|
Perl becoming Lispier
Quote:
> A former colleague, knowing my fancy for Lisp, used to cite the > following Larry Wall quote (this is from memory, with the usual bunch > of disclaimers): > Lisp programs has all the appeal of toe-nail clippings in > a bowl of soup.
The actual quote was: Lisp has all the visual appeal of oatmeal with fingernail clippings mixed in.
|
Sun, 10 Aug 2003 00:23:39 GMT |
|
|
David Thornl #5 / 213
|
Perl becoming Lispier
Quote:
>> A former colleague, knowing my fancy for Lisp, used to cite the >> following Larry Wall quote (this is from memory, with the usual bunch >> of disclaimers): >> Lisp programs has all the appeal of toe-nail clippings in >> a bowl of soup. >The actual quote was: > Lisp has all the visual appeal of oatmeal with fingernail clippings > mixed in.
Does anybody have a reason why I should pay any attention to a Perl designer and implementor about language or program aesthetics? It's like a COBOL fanatic complaining about keyword bloat in a language. -- David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
|
Sun, 10 Aug 2003 04:30:15 GMT |
|
|
David Bakhas #6 / 213
|
Perl becoming Lispier
Quote:
> * David Thornley > > Does anybody have a reason why I should pay any attention to a > > Perl designer and implementor about language or program > > aesthetics? > You should pay attention and remember it because it says so much > about both Larry Wall and Perl that virtually nothing else needs > to be said about either of them.
I don't know if I would transfer the stupidity of Wall's statement onto all of Perl. It is a language with a mission, and it has successfully helped programmers solve that mission. Wall's ignorance with respect to _Common_ Lisp might be based on seeing Scheme code, in which case I would actually agree with his statement. [I have reason to believe this because, after reading the recent transcription of Wall on the next Perl, he clumps Lisp and Scheme, and probably doesn't know the difference.] It's also a relative statement (relative to what he's seen, and his personal tastes). Lastly, it's not wise to label Wall based on something he said once, out of context. This whole thing about attributing (or blaming) one guy (Wall) for Perl reminds me of the American obsession with the MVP concept -- that there's always one person behind it all, and we make that person into a god (or scapegoat or whatever). Perl is a major effort by tons of people who work towards making it useful and functional. They do seem to spend more time on libraries rather than fixing the syntax of the language, but remember that these are hackers who are developing a language mostly for hacking solutions. If you accept it as that, then it's not nearly as bad. If you program in Perl and constrain yourself to certain coding standards and rules, then it becomes a useful tool for creating maintainable code. Now, at the same time, despite my comfort with Perl's syntax, I do believe that making any derogatory statement about Common Lisp syntax is absurd. Consider that part of Perl's code parser is a disambiguator. As bad as, say, the LOOP macro might be, Perl is worse both on a character _and_ token basis. dave
|
Sun, 10 Aug 2003 15:18:07 GMT |
|
|
Christopher C Stac #7 / 213
|
Perl becoming Lispier
Quote: >>>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:18:07 GMT, David Bakhash ("David") writes:
David> but remember that these are hackers who are developing a David> language mostly for hacking solutions. If you accept it as that, then David> it's not nearly as bad. I remember when "hackers" and "hacking" did not connote negative qualities. It sounds like you're trying to say something about the problem domain that most Perl library programmers are addressing, but I am not sure what.
|
Sun, 10 Aug 2003 16:20:02 GMT |
|
|
Xah Le #8 / 213
|
Perl becoming Lispier
A crook sung:
(Subject: Re: Transcription of Larry's talk; Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:27:40 -0700)
Quote: > Here are Larry Wall's musings on the future of Perl, in case you're > interested in this kind of thing:
> It looks like Perl 6 is going to have dynamic and static types like Common > Lisp.
Quote: > Just to quote out of context. > I think ugly can be beautiful, and that beautiful can get ugly real > quick. I think in particular of Lisp, which is the most beautiful > language in the world, and every program in Lisp is real ugly.
My dear readers, we have here an articulate rogue and his automata brooding and delighting in sensible nonsense. People, you must understand: Artistic literary expressions is the bane of clear thinking and logicality. Larry Wall, is a selfish happy-go-lucky person of little brain. (Linus Tovalds too) He likes to brag that he is a linguist, but i doubt he has made any contributions to linguistics at all. (or, if any linguists pay attention to him.) He likes to elaborate how he designed Perl. The fact is, it's a stupid hack that got lucky. (like, Linux.) Even popular, stupid hacks can never hide themselves. That is why, you don't see scholars, or computer scientists praising Perl, but on the contrary, you have billions upon billions of ignorant morons praising Perl and sporting a "Linus for President" button. If you have studied famed crooks, you'll note that often they have this kind of personality. They start stupidly and by happenstance noticed that people are gullible. Gradually, they developed to cash in their ways, keep distorting truth or history, and ride on to become saints. The above, in fact, speaks much of Unix's history and creators too. Is Xah Lee a crook too? How can you judge my objectivity? Very easy: Study study and study. Once you are a historian, mathematician, computer scientist, or a learned and not-happy-go-lucky man in one way or another, then you can. Xah
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html "Perl: all unix's stupidities in one." Quote:
> Organization: NewsOne.Net - Free Usenet News via the Web - http://newsone.net/ > Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp > Followup-To: comp.lang.lisp > Date: 16 Feb 2001 21:38:50 GMT > Subject: Perl becoming Lispier
|
Sun, 10 Aug 2003 17:06:13 GMT |
|
|
Xah Le #9 / 213
|
Perl becoming Lispier
Quote: > I don't know if I would transfer the stupidity of Wall's statement > onto all of Perl. It is a language with a mission, and it has > successfully helped programmers solve that mission.
You mean the mission to {*filter*} up education, right? Yes, i admit it's fairly successful. Quote: > This whole thing about attributing (or blaming) one guy (Wall) for > Perl reminds me of the American obsession with the MVP concept -- that > there's always one person behind it all, and we make that person into > a god (or scapegoat or whatever).
Like, Adolf Hitler being blamed for World War II and other things, right? I agree. We should blame the German soldiers, and actually, German people. Also, in particular, the Jews, the root of the problem. If US would have started a programme to exterminate both Germans and Jews, we'd have less population problems, to say nothing but the least. Quote: > Perl is a major effort by tons of > people who work towards making it useful and functional. They do seem > to spend more time on libraries rather than fixing the syntax of the > language, but remember that these are hackers who are developing a > language mostly for hacking solutions.
uhh... WHAT is your point or relevance anyway??? (and, i thought we are talking about WW II and Silence of the Lamb...) Quote: > If you accept it as that, then > it's not nearly as bad. If you program in Perl and constrain yourself > to certain coding standards and rules, then it becomes a useful tool > for creating maintainable code.
ah, YES! If you cultivate your shit like Larry Wall does, it'll become useful too. I'd say we start a bonsai shit fad, where you shit into shaped boxes and let dry and appreciate the art of shaping shit. Quote: > Now, at the same time, despite my comfort with Perl's syntax, I do > believe that making any derogatory statement about Common Lisp syntax > is absurd.
what a sage you are, humbly endowing us with pearls of wisdom. Quote: > Consider that part of Perl's code parser is a > disambiguator. As bad as, say, the LOOP macro might be, Perl is worse > both on a character _and_ token basis.
You ingested tooo much of Wall's shit, pal. If you don't plan to become a social scholar, i suggest you spent your time on computing text books instead. Say, perhaps study and write a paper on parsers, and maybe then critics will appreciate. Xah
http://www.*-*-*.com/ Quote:
> Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.*-*-*.com/ > Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp > Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:18:07 GMT > Subject: Re: Perl becoming Lispier
|
Sun, 10 Aug 2003 17:39:13 GMT |
|
|
Joe Marshal #10 / 213
|
Perl becoming Lispier
Quote:
> Is Xah Lee a crook too?
Perhaps Xah Lee is an articulate rogue delighting in brooding upon sensible nonsense. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
|
Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:16:16 GMT |
|
|
Jason Trenout #11 / 213
|
Perl becoming Lispier
Quote:
> This whole thing about attributing (or blaming) one guy (Wall) for > Perl reminds me of the American obsession with the MVP concept -- that > there's always one person behind it all, and we make that person into > a god (or scapegoat or whatever). Perl is a major effort by tons of > people who work towards making it useful and functional. They do seem > to spend more time on libraries rather than fixing the syntax of the > language,
And that's the point. Larry Wall wrote Perl "The Language" himself as part of a distributed configuration management project he was tasked with. At the time he said he "knew just enough Lisp to be dangerous". The Perl libraries have been written by many people since then. So I think you can pin the Perl language on him if you want to. Personally, I occasionally find Perl a useful amalgam, but wish it had a better foundation. __Jason
|
Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:56:05 GMT |
|
|
news.earthlink.ne #12 / 213
|
Perl becoming Lispier
Quote: > honor. But perhaps it helps to remind people that Scheme is not Lisp.
What is an appropriate definition of "Lisp"? For the less experienced, Lisp is a family of languages that use a simple syntax of nested parenthetic expressions. But syntax is probably not the most essential characteristic to look at when classifying a language as a Lisp. So what qualities does Scheme lack to exclude if from the label of a "Lisp"?
|
Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:37:46 GMT |
|
|
theglau.. #13 / 213
|
Perl becoming Lispier
Quote:
>>> A former colleague, knowing my fancy for Lisp, used to cite the >>> following Larry Wall quote (this is from memory, with the usual bunch >>> of disclaimers): >>> Lisp programs has all the appeal of toe-nail clippings in >>> a bowl of soup. >>The actual quote was: >> Lisp has all the visual appeal of oatmeal with fingernail clippings >> mixed in.
>Does anybody have a reason why I should pay any attention to a Perl >designer and implementor about language or program aesthetics? It's >like a COBOL fanatic complaining about keyword bloat in a language.
Larry Wall is a pretty smart and generous guy with a penchant for thinking "outside the box". That's one reason, and i'm sure there are others. glauber ----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web ----- http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
|
Mon, 11 Aug 2003 01:03:10 GMT |
|
|
Daniel Barlo #14 / 213
|
Perl becoming Lispier
Quote: > >>>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:18:07 GMT, David Bakhash ("David") writes: > David> but remember that these are hackers who are developing a > David> language mostly for hacking solutions. If you accept it as that, then > David> it's not nearly as bad. > I remember when "hackers" and "hacking" did not connote negative qualities. > It sounds like you're trying to say something about the problem domain > that most Perl library programmers are addressing, but I am not sure what.
Ah, I read "hacking" as a verb, not an adjective. Perl is used by pragmatic solution-oriented people - it lays much value on solving the problem at hand, and less on "elegance" or "cleanliness". "The right way to do it is whichever way gets your job done" The example that comes first to mind is CGI.pm -dan -- http://ww.telent.net/cliki/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
|
Mon, 11 Aug 2003 03:21:46 GMT |
|
|
Dorai Sitar #15 / 213
|
Perl becoming Lispier
Quote:
>What is an appropriate definition of "Lisp"? For the less experienced, Lisp >is a family of languages that use a simple syntax of nested parenthetic >expressions. But syntax is probably not the most essential characteristic >to look at when classifying a language as a Lisp. So what qualities does >Scheme lack to exclude if from the label of a "Lisp"?
Nothing. As Kent Pitman et al say in the R5RS, Scheme is a dialect of Lisp.
|
Mon, 11 Aug 2003 04:22:12 GMT |
|
|
|