[Edinburgh-pm] Someone is wrong on the Internet, and I'm worried it's me

[Miles Gould]

Help! I said something unsupported on Twitter, and now I'm being asked
to justify it.

Enraged by the discovery that there are language designers who think
it's OK to provide textual whole-file inclusion as the sole
code-reuse mechanism in fecking 2010, I tweeted

LANGUAGE DESIGNERS: unless you have a really good idea for a module
system, just copy Perl or O'Caml. You have no excuse for failure.

Within minutes, someone replied

@pozorvlak I don't know Perl or O'Caml's module systems - how to they
compare with Python?

Here's what I'm thinking of replying:

. at ColinTheMathmo Perl's is very similar in easy cases, but has
import-time hooks which can be (ab)used to great effect.
. at ColinTheMathmo O'Caml's is best-of-breed among statically-typed
languages: modules are first-class and can be parametrized.

Fair enough?

TIA,
Miles

-- 
DWIM - Do What I Meant. It describes Perl's sometimes uncanny ability to
do what you actually meant to do rather than what you thought you meant
to tell Perl to think that you meant to tell it to do. Or something like
that. -- Bernard El-Hagin in comp.lang.perl.misc