The "long-term" qualifier is important here. The best programmers I know are willing to go to great lengths to be lazy sometime in the future. Why write and maintain comments and documentation? Because you know when it breaks in the future it will be easier to fix, thus allowing you to fix the problem and go back to whatever "lazy" thing you were doing.
Let's be honest, the term lazy is loaded. I use the phrase "long-term lazy" because it elicits conversation. "You're looking for a trait that's considered negative? Why?" It's much easier to pull someone in by saying good programmers are lazy (in the long term) than good programmers are prudent.
This is of course what Larry meant, not the literal meaning.
The whole Perl 6 thing is the ultimate in this form of lazy; 15 years of design work on both the culture and the technology just so he can die in peace in his old age rather than worry about having to be reborn to continue tinkering with Perl 5.
...
Unsupported use of ->(), ->{} or ->[] as postfix dereferencer; in Perl 6 please use .(), .[] or .{} to deref ...
Following the advice leads to:
my $larry;
$larry.{Please}.{Add}.{Feature}++;
which leads to another compile-time error:
...
Undeclared names:
Add used at line 1
Feature used at line 1
Please used at line 1
...
Those "undeclared names" were probably meant to be string hash keys. So try that:
my $larry;
$larry.{'Please'}.{'Add'}.{'Feature'}++;
Bingo.
By the way, that's an unusual way to write such code. The periods are optional, so this is equivalent:
$larry{'Please'}{'Add'}{'Feature'}++;
And the braces, which support any expression, such as strings as used in this example, are typically not used. Instead, typical code uses angle brackets, which assume the words within are strings:
$larry<Please><Add><Feature>++;
Finally, in Perl 6 it's often useful to use an array sigil (@) or hash sigil (%) instead of the general purpose scalar sigil ($):
my %larry;
%larry<Please><Add><Feature>++;
I don't know if I've incanted a commit in Perl 6 by writing this, but ya never know... :)
----
An old sig of mine (slightly reworded) from the 90s:
If I could live my life again I think I'd believe in reincarnation.
Let's be honest, the term lazy is loaded. I use the phrase "long-term lazy" because it elicits conversation. "You're looking for a trait that's considered negative? Why?" It's much easier to pull someone in by saying good programmers are lazy (in the long term) than good programmers are prudent.