Linked by Shlomi Fish on Sat 16th Oct 2004 07:28 UTC
General Development The purpose of this essay is to explain why I believe Perl 6, the way it currently seems to progress, is the wrong thing at the wrong time, and why I predict (with all the expected caveats of predicting something) that it won't be successful. I will also suggest a better alternative for the future of Perl which makes more sense at this point.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Re: Ah, Slashdot on OSnews, who knew?
by Richard Dale on Sun 17th Oct 2004 03:28 UTC

Anyways, the difference between a programming language and a scripting language is fairly simple. One actually compiles to machine code while the other one leaves the code wide open for anybody to see. A prime example would be comparing the two microsoft suites. Visual Studio 6 and Visual Studio 7. While one is a programming suite, the other is a scripting suite (minus VC++ 7 unmanaged option).

It seems to me this has more to do with not showing the code to the end user, and it allows you to write closed source software. Maybe the fact your always have to release perl as source is a closed source vs. open source issue. What if you could release perl source code encrypted, and only the users who had bought it off you could decrypt it - would that make perl a proper programming language? I think you can compile python already, and so it must qualify as a 'programming language' under those terms.

Then what if you can compile a 'scripting language' to machine code on the fly via a jit, and you never need to generate CLR bytecodes. Does that make a scripting language more of a 'proper language' than C#? It is easier to decompile CLR byte codes than it is strong encryption + machine code..

-- Richard