[RDF] Little bits of thinkering...

[Jonas Liljegren]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Stefan Andersson wrote:


> I'm reading about MS new OO language C# (C-sharp) on:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/nettop.asp
> 
> The language is pitched as a 'Java killer', aiming for most of the nifty
> features that made Java cool.

Larry Wall made a reference to a interview with the C# head architect on
Oreilly:
	http://windows.oreilly.com/news/hejlsberg_0800.html

He said:
	Here's another article that talks about a lot of the things we
        *should* be thinking.  In fact, it's possible this article should
        be required reading for anyone who aspires to be a Perl designer.


I'm as entusiastic as ever over the work with Perl 6 that is going
on.  Everything is going to get better, faster, smaller, easier, more
intuitive, powerful and with loads of new cool fetaures. ;-)

And its inspiering to read the language design discussions.  This stage of
the Wraf development is rather low level. We are designing a
meta-language.

(Perl v6 is planned to be alpha in one year and beta in two years,
aproximatly.)



> #4: Did I tell you about the 'parallell failure channel' I thought of
> some years ago? I think every language should have an 'error stack' you
> could put all the messages, non-critical failures, critical failures and
> breaks in, so that when a process finally stops, you have a complete
> failure log stack. Of course this would consist of diagnostic data and
> plain text messages as well as error codes. This way, you could safely
> assume that the error was reported on the correct level, and brought up
> the levels... 

How would this differ from a normal traceback availible by the perl Carp
functions?

Maby you could give a more detaild example. Or explain how this could aply
to Wraf.  A general problem is that the error doesnt originate in the
current branch of the call tree, but from another branch there a shared
data structure was modified with bad data.


> (The parallell failure channel really should be a feature of the
> semi-SOAP I'm more and more interested in developing! We really should
> call it WORF, for Web Object Remote Functions! (Or WRAF Object Remote
> Functinality...))

Thats what the services do. It should be easy to just ad more services on
diffrent machines, or use any service on the web. And it should be able to
handle more trafic and more data by this distribution. The data
replication should be transparent as an effect of the normal cache
functions.


But this is not my first intended use of Wraf...



> Damn! This is getting dangerously close to what I saw in that vision
> back in '97. Thank God MS obviously haven't seen the data ==
> presentation == logic thing yet, and thought about combining it with
> recursive self-reference.

Hush! You are on a open source mailing list. Sombody could actualy read
this!!

Maby we shold put a GPL copyright on every message? ;)




Anyway... Two more days to go.


-- 
/ Jonas  -  http://jonas.liljegren.org/myself/en/index.html