[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       perl6-language
Subject:    Defining Perl 6 for the masses
From:       Parrot Raiser <1parrota () gmail ! com>
Date:       2013-09-30 14:39:33
Message-ID: CACwLAp9m+Ycn0DuMrCDaSSfBdZ5BQYvbVxYQVxm71fYqYJ=Dfg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

This is related to the conversation on the Synopses, but its
sufficiently different that it probably justifies its own thread.

I want to start by making it clear that I'm not criticising the design
of Perl 6, or any of the people working so hard to make it great. I'm
just trying to address what I see as an obstacle to its adoption, (but
may smply be my personal limitations). I've been following the project
from the beginning, and have "Perl 6 and Parrot (2nd. ed)",
http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596007379.do  which I understand
is no longer relevant.

People on this list are undoubtedly familiar with the uncomfortable
feeling that they're the smartest person in the room. I get it
occasionally, but usually in the Perl community, I can relax. When
giving training classes, however, it wasn't uncommon. Generally,
groups would appear quite comfortable when shown the first four
arithmetic operators, (+,-,*,/), but when the modulus operator was
introduced they would become clearly uneasy. That meant I was in for
some work, but it's the level of enthusiasm I think we have to
consider.

People working on open-source projects naturally want to solve the
sort of problems that interest them. Languages developed by compiler
writers and language theorists will tend to address questions which
ordinary coders will not even understand, let alone want to solve.

The development team obviously need a vocabulary to discuss such
topics, so on top of natural obscurity, they've develped an IRC
culture nearly impenetrable to outsiders, (at least this one). I've
tried to follow it, but don't want to get in the way and slow down
people doing useful work by asking too many dumb "noob" questions.
However, some of the topics seem pretty esoteric.

It takes time and effort to understand features of a language, so
unless they are necessary to a problem, in a sense they become bugs.
"Solutions" should not generally be more difficult than the problems
they are supposed to solve.

The "vertical" view of the specification presented by the Synopses,
exploring each area in depth, makes perfect sense as a design
document, but presents an enormous challenge to a human memory trying
to load the whole language at once. This is compounded by them not
necessarily reflecting what the language should actually do at any
moment, either
because the feature hasn't been implemented yet, or because it has
been revised and the Synopsis hasn't.

I've made a couple of attempts to get up to speed by writing sample
programs, but I keep crashing into obstacles. Translating "Mastering
Algorithms in Perl" to Perl 6 stumbled almost instantly, because it
uses CPAN modules, so I turned to the Unix utilities for
specifications. wc seems like a simple task, but even that promptly
ran into the question
of $.'s replacement, which doesn't appear to work as advertised.

Reading Perl 6 examples on Rosettacode helps a little, but the site's
structure makes it a rather cumbersome process.

Having recently read Herbert Simon's "The Sciences Of The Artificial",
(and listened to TIMTOWDI's "State Of The Onion" addresses),  I wonder
if a "layered" approach is the answer to Perl 6's sheer size? A series
of defined subsets of increasing abstraction, from the basics up to
the sophistication of grammar redefinition, would let beginners solve
simple problems with a simple language, but offer a path to more
advanced topics as far as they wish to go. (Just as Perl 5 goes from
Llama to Camel and onward to Jaguar.)

Even a guru has to take the path to enlightenment one step at a time.
Unfortunately, the starting point and boundaries of the path aren't
well-defined. This leaves the sage wandering a plain of obscurity, in
pursuit of ever more tenuous metaphors.

One particular historical analogue that occurs to me is PL/1. You may
be familiar with the sage of IBM's attempt to develop One Language To
Rule Them All, but in case you aren't, it goes something like this.
After tossing Cobol, Fortran, and Algol into the cauldron,
IBM kept stirring vigorously, to the point where scope creep was
putting the development behinder the longer it went on. The lab at
Hursley finally took on the project and delivered something, by
nailing down the subset of features they could promise to implement,
with the rest to follow later. (An early example of "Agile" practices,
I suppose.)

If a reasonably immutable basic language exists and can be published,
we can get on with learning it, preparing exercises and training
materials regardless of the obscure controversies over object
interface properties going on at the internal levels. Areas clearly
marked "not done yet, do not try this" can be bypassed. It might not
be release 1.0, but at least 0.nn (nn > 0.5).

Is that realistic, or have I missed something vital?
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]