Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Turing Complete, was Re: [extremeperl] Logic Programming in Perl -- Just say no

Expand Messages
  • Rob Nagler
    ... In other words, you have a technical problem that your customer doesn t want to pay for. :-) ... Please keep us informed on this list. To the people who
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 5, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Rob Kinyon writes:
      > I just don't have the tuits to learn a
      > language that I can't give excuses for right now to my wife.

      In other words, you have a technical problem that your customer
      doesn't want to pay for. :-)

      > I'm also considering a way to make coderefs a first-class datatype in
      > Perl the way they are in Haskell or Lisp. But, I need to think some
      > more, first.

      Please keep us informed on this list.

      To the people who think they were going to convert somebody to
      Haskell: When I say I haven't found a problem that I couldn't solve in
      Perl, I am saying that Perl is good enough. It isn't saying Perl is a
      hammer (or a swiss army chainsaw ;-), or that I haven't learned by
      working on projects in other languages. It merely states that Perl
      contains all the abstractions I have needed to solve the
      problems I have thus far encountered.

      Suppose that I was building hard real-time systems. Perl is missing
      some fundamental abstractions to help me get there. Undoubtedly, I
      would encounter a problem that Perl didn't handle well. At that
      point, I would hit CPAN, which probably wouldn't help in this case. I
      might decide to add time constraints to Perl subroutines. The process
      model would depend on the deployment platform, but there probably
      would be an API for that, which Perl would allow me to attach to very
      easily. This is how any XP programmer should start out. Otherwise,
      it's not XP.

      Would I be re-inventing the wheel? No. I would be doing what I do on
      a daily basis: trading off build vs buy. Or, if you prefer, time
      vs. space (money). Does Haskell contain interesting concepts? Yup.
      However, the concepts are trivial to copy into Perl. If they weren't,
      there wouldn't be so many different functional programming languages
      out there.

      I have written a variety of operating systems. Some would say that
      Perl is not suited to the task. They are possibly right, but then
      again nobody has tried afaik. It's not something you are supposed to

      Recently, someone was asked in a talk: how would you use XP to build
      an operating system? Having built an operating system in a very
      iterative fashion, I would argue it's been done already. You start
      with the simplest thing that could possibly work, say context
      switching, for one computer. You then expand from there. Remember
      that Linux was PC only until a couple of years ago. Everybody thought
      Linus was building a non-portable, monolith, but now Linux is one of
      the most robust and most portable operating systems in the world. I
      would argue it's probably the only operating system you need!

      More fodder for the global conspiracy. :-)

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.