WTF? (why no alternate implemenations?)

Luis Motta Campos luismottacampos at
Fri Mar 7 12:45:46 GMT 2008

Ovid wrote:
> I can certainly understand that, but remember that Kurila is
> basically a huge experiment.  If you look at Ruby or Python, they
> both have multiple forks as people try to achieve different design
> goals.  Perl, the "TIMTOWTDI" language, has an "TIOOWTDI" (There Is
> Only One Way To Do It) implementation and I think that's a shame.
> I'd love to see people being able to experiment with Perl and have
> alternate implementations that target different needs.

OK, I agree with the bit of welcoming experimentation. My complain is
towards the way such experimentation is being published. If you look at
Kurilla's module list on CPAN, you'll see that they're all marked as
"UNAUTHORIZED RELEASE". Obviously, something went quite wrong during the
upload to CPAN.

And, as CPAN (and I) was confused about the experiment, other people can
be fooled into "buying cat as rabbit" (to use a quite illustrative
brazilian-portuguese expression).

> While this is an explicit design goal of Perl 6 (and one that's 
> approached in a far more saner way), it's something that has
> previously been difficult to achieve in Perl (anyone remember
> "Topaz"?).  I think people being willing and able to experiment is a
> sign of a healthy project.

I never heard about Topaz. Anyone have interesting links at hand?

Luis Motta Campos (a.k.a. Monsieur Champs) is a software engineer,
Perl fanatic evangelist, and amateur {cook, photographer}

More information about the mailing list