Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Perl 5.20.0 released

metacpan.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–85 of 85 posts

Re: Perl 5.20.0 released

#81

Post by logicallee »

kbenson wrote: post #71
logicallee wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're talking about other people's comments, not mine. I realize that you might be used to talking with those people, but it doesn't really have much to do with what I write. My statements have more or less nothing to do with Perl. (Please let that sink in.) As far as my "understanding" of Perl 6. According to http://perl6.org/compilers/std-viv "The Perl 6 standard grammar is written in Perl 6, and specifies…

I think the problems with your argument boil down to a few thigs: 1) You seem to be making an argument for some future language. That it would drop many of the things the make Perl Perlish is presupposed as what "people" would want. It would keep the name, as you state, because it would be the same community of people. The community of people that would keep the Perl name are not the same "people" you refer to that a…

This is very good, though this thread is a bit old and deep. Your italicized part ("Again, I think this can be attributed to you taking a more abstract approach to what you are saying, but choosing to use concrete names, such as Perl, and doing so in the comments of an article about a new Perl release.") made me laugh :)

You are possibly right, though I was just making an off-hand remark and only just clarified when prompted explicitly. I think the 90 words / 4 lines I wrote originally were fine, and if someone asks for clarification no reason not to include it. In general I don't think an article on a new version of Perl is a bad place for such thoughts.

I like your comments, especially, on domain specific languages, though as mentioned the thread is a bit old and deep to continue here. I couldn't find an email but if you reply with one I'm happy to discuss. Your tenhundredwordsofscience is a really good example of how it gets awkward not to use specialist vocabulary. I like your analogy with chemists, physicists, lawyers, engineers, and architects. The former two especially use specialist symbols that are impenetrable to total laypersons. anyway if you have an email I'll respond to your good points.

Re: Perl 5.20.0 released

#82

Post by kbenson »

logicallee wrote: post #81
kbenson wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problems with your argument boil down to a few thigs: 1) You seem to be making an argument for some future language. That it would drop many of the things the make Perl Perlish is presupposed as what "people" would want. It would keep the name, as you state, because it would be the same community of people. The community of people that would keep the Perl name are not the same "people" you refer to that a…

This is very good, though this thread is a bit old and deep. Your italicized part ("Again, I think this can be attributed to you taking a more abstract approach to what you are saying, but choosing to use concrete names, such as Perl, and doing so in the comments of an article about a new Perl release .") made me laugh :) You are possibly right, though I was just making an off-hand remark and only just clarified when…

I updated my about with a slightly encoded version of my email, if you want to continue.

Re: Perl 5.20.0 released

#83

Post by logicallee »

kbenson wrote: post #82
logicallee wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very good, though this thread is a bit old and deep. Your italicized part ("Again, I think this can be attributed to you taking a more abstract approach to what you are saying, but choosing to use concrete names, such as Perl, and doing so in the comments of an article about a new Perl release .") made me laugh :) You are possibly right, though I was just making an off-hand remark and only just clarified when…

I updated my about with a slightly encoded version of my email, if you want to continue.

Hi, tried to email you. You'd written "k e n t r a k # google's mail" but kentrak@google.com (the only way I could think of interpreting that) bounced. (I don't mind including it here as Google's server says that mailbox doesn't exist).

Kind of ironic given our conversation :-) Could you bit a bit more explicit ;-)

Re: Perl 5.20.0 released

#84

Post by kbenson »

logicallee wrote: post #83
kbenson wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I updated my about with a slightly encoded version of my email, if you want to continue.

Hi, tried to email you. You'd written "k e n t r a k # google's mail" but kentrak@google.com (the only way I could think of interpreting that) bounced. (I don't mind including it here as Google's server says that mailbox doesn't exist). Kind of ironic given our conversation :-) Could you bit a bit more explicit ;-)

@google.com is for people who work at google, @gmail.com is what I meant, as "google's email service". I agree, it wasn't very clear, but I don't particularly want harvesters having an easy time.

Re: Perl 5.20.0 released

#85

Post by logicallee »

kbenson wrote: post #84
logicallee wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, tried to email you. You'd written "k e n t r a k # google's mail" but kentrak@google.com (the only way I could think of interpreting that) bounced. (I don't mind including it here as Google's server says that mailbox doesn't exist). Kind of ironic given our conversation :-) Could you bit a bit more explicit ;-)

@google.com is for people who work at google, @gmail.com is what I meant, as "google's email service". I agree, it wasn't very clear, but I don't particularly want harvesters having an easy time.

wow, how bizarre. I could have sworn I sent it to a gmail address, I thought that it was obvious you meant gmail, and even after your reply I thought "well yeah of course I sent it to gmail, that part was obvoius" and thought I must have just mistyped it here, but sent correctly in my sent mail. It's weird that I actually did send it to @google.

The thing is that I must have just carefully been doing character transliteration, changing your #, removing spaces, etc, to deobfuscate and @google didn't end up looking wrong enough! Sorry. Sent to the correct (and obvious) email.

BTW the fact this happened is just too good, given the subject! I forgot to dereference a literal in a string. :)

Anyway I've re-sent the email.

Post reply on HN