[13139] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 549 Volume: 9
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Sun Aug 15 23:10:47 1999
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 20:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Sun, 15 Aug 1999 Volume: 9 Number: 549
Today's topics:
Re: Why use Perl when we've got Python?! <cmcurtin@interhack.net>
Re: Why use Perl when we've got Python?! <webmaster@chatbase.com>
Re: Why use Perl when we've got Python?! <rra@stanford.edu>
Re: Why use Perl when we've got Python?! <webmaster@chatbase.com>
Re: Why use Perl when we've got Python?! <webmaster@chatbase.com>
Re: Why use Perl when we've got Python?! <webmaster@chatbase.com>
Re: Why use Perl when we've got Python?! <webmaster@chatbase.com>
Re: Why use Perl when we've got Python?! <webmaster@chatbase.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 1 Jul 99) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 Aug 1999 21:09:15 -0400
From: Matt Curtin <cmcurtin@interhack.net>
Subject: Re: Why use Perl when we've got Python?!
Message-Id: <xlxzozs1qh0.fsf@gold.cis.ohio-state.edu>
>>>>> On 12 Aug 1999 15:21:40 -0700, Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> said:
Russ> Despite how much other people are trying, I think your questions
Russ> are unanswerable in the way that you're phrasing them. Maybe
Russ> you won't be one of the people who likes Perl. There certainly
Russ> are programmers who don't think like Perl does. And there are
Russ> people who do.
I agree strongly. There are two big considerations here: your mindset
and the problem domain in which you're working. If you're writing
device drivers for operating systems, Perl probably isn't the best
tool in the world for the job. If you come from a Macintosh
background and are used to programming in BASIC variants and using
tools like hypercard or whatever, Perl is going to be extremely
foreign.
For those who are well-versed in Unix, Perl is extremely natural. Its
mnemonics and its syntax come from things with which we're familiar.
We can guess at how to do things and be right more often than we're
wrong.
Russ> Perl is the antithesis of LISP
I disagree strongly here. I have heard this said before, but being a
fan of both Lisp and Perl, I can probably enumerate more similarities
between Perl and Common Lisp than differences, aside from the obvious
issue of syntax.
Both are very well suited to bottom-up design. Both let you deal with
your data pretty much however you want. Both will grow your arrays
(or lists) to any size you like. Both handle all of the low-level
crap of memory management and whatnot for you. Both let you choose
your own paradigm: imperative, object-oriented, functional, whatever.
Both have very friendly debugging environments. Both will let you
work with some subset of the language that you know and learn more as
you go. Both are large, rich languages that, when you've mastered
them, allow you to create tremendous works.
--
Matt Curtin cmcurtin@interhack.net http://www.interhack.net/people/cmcurtin/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 18:14:40 -0700
From: TRG Software: Tim Greer <webmaster@chatbase.com>
Subject: Re: Why use Perl when we've got Python?!
Message-Id: <37B76600.FECF5FEB@chatbase.com>
John Stevens wrote:
>
> On 14 Aug 1999 04:08:05 GMT, Sam Holden <sholden@pgrad.cs.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> >That could simply have been a reference. Or a symbolic reference.
> >
> >What is fundamental is that a @ tacked on the front indicates that it is an
> >array.
>
> :-)
>
> What is so amusing about that, is that you can say that with a straight
> face!
>
> :-)
>
> >So given @$fred, even with no knowledge of what that exactly means
> >you should be able to tell that it is somehow treating $fred as an array.
>
> No, what any reasonable person would do would be to grab for his
> Perl book. . .
Until they learn the language enough to know these things. If you judge
a language based only on what you remember in the smallest amount of
learning time you've spent, then you're limiting yourself in too many
ways to bother mentioning. Some people have a better comprehension for
certain languages over others. It's really that simple. Some people are
scared off, or disillusioned too quickly. Simply put, they haven't spent
the proper amount of time (some languages do take longer to learn well
enough to not have to use reference material every few minutes), or they
weren't taught properly, or it's just something that they have less of a
comprehension for, or perhaps a lack of desire to really get so involved
when they could be using other languages. Sometimes that limits you and
your ability. You only limit yourself at that point, because you could
be writing better programs in a language that's probably better suited
for the task, a language that confuses you, because you don't understand
it as quickly as another. That's fine, and for some people, it's not
worth the time invested to pout so much time into learning for more
reasons that are equally as pointless to mention. Some people think
learning Assembly is a complete waste of time.. Why learn it when you
already know enough C? Right? Wrong. If you have time and reason or
desire, learn it. Even if you'll never use it, I'd suggest you learn it.
It might not be easy, but in most circumstances, you'll probably end up
writing better C programs... You'd have to learn Assembly to know what
I'm talking about... The only real drawback, is the fact that you'll
cringe when you realize what the C compiler is doing to your code. You
can't know this, because you either don't know the language, or know it
well enough to state such things. Sure, you find it more confusing then
Python, that's fine, that's you. However, in that case, you shouldn't
make statements that make you look foolish here, in a Perl NG, simply
based on the facts that you can't deal with the curly braces and such,
or the fact that _you_ personally can't remember some of the syntax and
whatnot. That's ridiculous and that's why this completely pointless
thread has continued for so long.
> >>Yes. . . is it a hash, or a scalar? If it is a scalar, why
> >>is it called dict? If it is a hash, then why is it prefixed
> >>by $? If this is a reference instead of a scalar, then why
> >>doesn't it have it's own special prefix character. ;->
> >
> >It's a scalar. It is named dict because TomC called it that.
>
> Yes. My point exactly.
Yes, well, tell me, _what_ is it to be called? You should know how much
Tom is involved in Perl and how much he contributes. It's not a bad idea
or a wrong idea to call it something _you_ personally don't agree with.
You are complaining about "lists" in Perl? It's what it's called in
_this_ language, _this_ is _not_ Python. Do you just use this as an
example, based on the fact that it's not what you're _used to seeing_?
Or what you think it would be better called? This is a pretty high-level
language, and you are sort of contradicting yourself by saying how
difficult the syntax is to remember for _you_ (however that's relevant
to the rest of the world?), yet you think it should be called a more
technical term that _most_ people wouldn't understand? Isn't that at
least _part_ of your point?
> >It is
> >also named that since it is a reference to a hash. I use code like this
> >in C quite a bit :
>
> A reference to a hash. . . and yet TC claims that Perl is open to
> non-computer scientists.
>
> :-)
>
> Doesn't *ANYBODY* else see the irony in that?
How about the fact that you appear you be your own walking
contradiction? I believe that point is and was correct, and is to the
fact that; In Perl, people with no background in CS can learn enough,
right off, within a very short time, to be able to write some programs
that will accomplish some basic to intermediate tasks. That's not to say
that they will be able to know the more complex aspects of the language
with as much ease, and that goes without saying for _any_ language. Why
disagree with that?
> >If you know what it means then why do you continually get it wrong
> >throughout this thread?
>
> I don't suppose that you realize that getting wrong simply
> proves (and illustrates) my point?
About you and your statements, yes. You aren't everyone, or the
majority. If enough people asked that some of the keywords and
definitions be changed and there was a real need for it, I'm sure it
would happen... I don't see that happening, because there's no reason,
because _most_ people here seem to understand it and remember the syntax
well enough to where they don't suffer from the same problem as you.
> I learned it. I used it. I haven't written a new Perl program
> in three months.
>
> I come back to it, I get it wrong. . . do you see, yet,
> or do you just not get it?
I think the point is, is that you simply don't "get" Perl. You "get"
Python better, it's more comprehensible to you, and that's fine. Some
people find the opposite true. I myself, as both a Perl and Python
programmer (among other languages) look for and find the similarities.
There are more then a few if you really look at it. What's better for
what you're doing, is the question? What language do you find easier to
use personally? Why say one language is flawed over another based on
your own experience. Who did you learn from? Where did you learn from?
How much time did you spend? What, if any, do you have in prior
CS/programming backgrounds? Are you willing to dismiss some or many of
the things you were taught when you learned the prior, or do you feel
it's a better language based on the fact that you find it's closer to,
or easier to understand right off in comparison to the prior knowledge
you posses? Who are you to say?
<SNIP>
This is really stupid. Have you read any, many, or all of Tom's books
he's authored or co-authored? The man is not stupid and he knows what
he's talking about, which you have to admit is true when it comes to
Perl at least. Isn't it expected that he'll make points in defense of
Perl? You obviously don't like Perl as much as Python, and no one's
saying there's anything wrong with that.. The only flaw with your logic
in your posts, is the fact that it seems that you're speaking for others
and basing a lot of it on the fact, as you claim, that you yourself
personally find remembering the syntax difficult. Ok, so? That's you, I
can't think of anyone else that used Perl that has that problem, but I'm
sure more then a few do, just as with any other language. Why use Perl
when you've got Python? I don't know, maybe you'll enjoy Perl more, use
it more, or find it better suited for you or your task? Maybe your
particular program will run faster/better in perl rather then Python?
Maybe you can market it with more ease? Maybe something else? maybe your
program (for you, from you coding it) will run better coded in Python?
There's no point to this at all! If you want to compare it in that
manner, then tell me, _why_ bother with Perl OR Python, when you can use
C? Further, _why_ use C, when you can code it in Assembly? After all,
it's faster, you can make it do anything you want,
as-long-as-you-know-how. Just because you don't "know how", doesn't mean
it lacks something the language you _can_ code in better.
There was really no point to any of this. Making claims one way of the
other, about what you "believe" would be better named or worded does
little to no good. Note that my post in reply to you is/was completely
relevant and on-topic in regards to your post and this entire issue...
Note also, that I didn't have to use on piece of code to make this
point... after all, this is, to you as you've made it clear, to prove
your point, or disprove it. I'm just wondering _what_ your "point" was
supposed to be when it all comes down to it? I have been following the
thread, and I have yet to see a real point made.
--
Regards,
Tim Greer : webmaster@chatbase.com | software@linkworm.com
The ChatBase: http://www.chatbase.com | 250,000+ hits daily Worldwide!
TRG Software: http://www.linkworm.com | CGI scripts in Perl/C, & more.
Unix/NT/Novell Administration, Security, Web Design, ASP, SQL, & more.
Freelance Programming & Consulting, Musician, Martial Arts, +Sciences.
------------------------------
Date: 15 Aug 1999 18:25:12 -0700
From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Why use Perl when we've got Python?!
Message-Id: <ylbtc87c07.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Matt Curtin <cmcurtin@interhack.net> writes:
>>>>>> On 12 Aug 1999 15:21:40 -0700, Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> said:
> Russ> Perl is the antithesis of LISP
> I disagree strongly here. I have heard this said before, but being a
> fan of both Lisp and Perl, I can probably enumerate more similarities
> between Perl and Common Lisp than differences, aside from the obvious
> issue of syntax.
I was thinking of one specific aspect of LISP, namely that LISP is
designed to be maximally "clean." Everything is a list, you can treat
everything like a list, and it generally favors cleanliness and simplicity
of design over convenience.
There are other aspects of LISP that have been picked up by Perl, but that
one in particular is typical of a theoretical language.
--
#!/usr/bin/perl -- Russ Allbery, Just Another Perl Hacker
$^=q;@!>~|{>krw>yn{u<$$<[~||<Juukn{=,<S~|}<Jwx}qn{<Yn{u<Qjltn{ > 0gFzD gD,
00Fz, 0,,( 0hF 0g)F/=, 0> "L$/GEIFewe{,$/ 0C$~> "@=,m,|,(e 0.), 01,pnn,y{
rw} >;,$0=q,$,,($_=$^)=~y,$/ C-~><@=\n\r,-~$:-u/ #y,d,s,(\$.),$1,gee,print
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 18:43:41 -0700
From: TRG Software: Tim Greer <webmaster@chatbase.com>
Subject: Re: Why use Perl when we've got Python?!
Message-Id: <37B76CCD.1D7FCD82@chatbase.com>
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
> > In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> > "John W. Stevens" <jstevens@basho.fc.hp.com> writes:
> > :With PCRE, I prefer Python. I am slowly giving up Perl altogether,
> > :except as a training language in OO classes. Not to surprisingly,
> > :Python is preferred more than 7 to 1 over Perl by students who are
> > :exposed to both at the same time.
> >
> > I'm sure I am perfectly capable of presenting both Perl and Python
> > in such a way that the students would prefer Perl by 7 to 1 as well.
>
> Except that in your case, it would a concious attempt to influence
> the outcome.
>
> In my case, it was not. In fact, the first four times I did this,
> I was subconciously favoring Perl. Imagine my shock. . .
>
> > So what?
>
> So. . . draw your own conclusions. I've already seen how you
> structured one reply.
>
> John S.
Sounds to me, John, by your statements throughout this thread, that your
"students" preferred Python over Perl, simply based on their observation
of you failing at Perl and making more sense out of Python, due to the
fact that you seem to understand Python a hell of a lot more then Perl.
If an instructor is teaching a course on Auto mechanics and makes
complete and comprehensible sense out of Chevy engines and find himself
confused when working on a BMW or a Porshe, I think I'd be incline to
favor the American engine over the foreign, at least until I found
someone knowledgeable enough, or learned on my own of some of the
advantages that some of the foreign motors offer, assuming this was even
a possible fact. bad real world example, but your statement in this
thread did little good for your argument.
--
Regards,
Tim Greer : webmaster@chatbase.com | software@linkworm.com
The ChatBase: http://www.chatbase.com | 250,000+ hits daily Worldwide!
TRG Software: http://www.linkworm.com | CGI scripts in Perl/C, & more.
Unix/NT/Novell Administration, Security, Web Design, ASP, SQL, & more.
Freelance Programming & Consulting, Musician, Martial Arts, +Sciences.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 18:52:46 -0700
From: TRG Software: Tim Greer <webmaster@chatbase.com>
Subject: Re: Why use Perl when we've got Python?!
Message-Id: <37B76EEE.359F593A@chatbase.com>
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
> > In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> > "John W. Stevens" <jstevens@basho.fc.hp.com> writes:
> > :Polymorphism requires both OO training, and discipline to use, but if
> > :used correctly, it is very powerful.
> >
> > No disagreements.
> >
> > But I can't help but wonder: Is this how you keep out 99% of the
> > accidental programmers, the ones who use Perl?
>
> Who says I keep anybody out of anything? I teach OO. Not C++, or
> Smalltalk. . . OO.
>
> > If you require OO training
> > and discipline, then you set the bar at the gate untenably high.
>
> An opinion. Duly noted, of course. But still an opinion.
Just as yours is, not a very good argument, is it?
> > Perl remains proudly pedestrian in its roots.
>
> What does that mean?
You're embarrassing yourself, you just don't realize it.
> > It doesn't require a Computer
> > Science degree to use.
>
> Neither does Python. But, why in heaven's name would you talk first
> about competence, then state it as a benefit that Perl can be used
> by the untrained?
Because it's inherently easier to get started on and have a working
program then most other languages. In a short amount of time, you can
get far, yet at the same time, you can only get "so far", until you need
to put any real effort into it, so you can learn the more complex
features of the language to your advantage, which can only be obtained
with a certain amount of comprehension and competence. How did that slip
by you? How is that different from any other language? Any idiot can
learn at least _some_ of the language and create a program to do a few
simple to intermediate tasks, but they have to posses a certain amount
of intellect to further their knowledge.
> Why, in heaven's name, would you prefer Joe Blow (who has worked for
> five years as a butcher) to perform your brain surgery, to a Medical
> Doctor with a degree in Neuro Surgery?
I don't think anyone would, you're blowing that out of proportion, John.
Think about it. Why would you deny any help from "Joe Blow" to assist
you in changing your tire? That doesn't mean you'll allow him to rebuild
your engine. Refer to the above statement.
> > This, too, is a feature. Formal training is
> > optional.
>
> "Formal traing is optional"
>
> Now, what defines the difference between "formal" and "informal"
> training?
Refer to my above statements. I'm sure you'll figure it out. :-)
> And, how do you figure that OO is more difficult, more
> formal than what-ever-it-is that you are talking about?
Who said that? However, would you suggest a person start right in trying
to learn C++ and tell them how it's not important (or that it's
better/wiser) to learn C first? Taking the proper steps, learning one
thing before you learn something more indepth/complex perhaps? That's
the first thing that comes to mind for an answer when I read your
paragraph. Then again, admittingly, I'm failing to understand what you
mean to say in this post, so maybe you can clarify?
--
Regards,
Tim Greer : webmaster@chatbase.com | software@linkworm.com
The ChatBase: http://www.chatbase.com | 250,000+ hits daily Worldwide!
TRG Software: http://www.linkworm.com | CGI scripts in Perl/C, & more.
Unix/NT/Novell Administration, Security, Web Design, ASP, SQL, & more.
Freelance Programming & Consulting, Musician, Martial Arts, +Sciences.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 19:23:26 -0700
From: TRG Software: Tim Greer <webmaster@chatbase.com>
Subject: Re: Why use Perl when we've got Python?!
Message-Id: <37B7761E.A67565FE@chatbase.com>
John Stevens wrote:
>
> On 13 Aug 1999 14:15:05 -0700, Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
> > [courtesy cc of this posting mailed to cited author]
> >
> >In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> > "John W. Stevens" <jstevens@basho.fc.hp.com> writes:
> >:And cost a lot, big time, in the real world also. The most common
> >:lament from a section manager: "I've got all this Perl code that
> >:<fill-in-a-name> wrote, and nobody else can understand this stuff!"
> >
> >I am sick and tired of the implication that because stupid people write
> >stupid Perl, that Perl is stupid.
>
> I was not
> implying that.
But that's where you're basically getting your reasons from, be it you
are aware of that or not.
> So, to avoid confusion, I'll be explicit. The lament was not from
> a manager complaining about a stupid programmer.
>
> >Stupid people are associated with
> >everything!
>
> Yes. True.
>
> >Perl is also 100x more popular than Python -- simple because
> >even stupid people *are able* to use it!
>
> I don't necesarily agree or disagree that Perl is 100 times more
> popular than Python. I don't have figures I can trust.
I think you can more then safely assume this fact.
> But I question your assertion that Perl is popular because stupid
> people can use it.
It's "popular", which *means* more people, which stupid people are part
of. It's not popular *because* stupid people can use it, it's just
popular.. there's a lot of stupid people. I can tell you from my own
experience (yes, I know, I know), that very few real world,
non-programmers, non-technical type people are even aware of Python. I
have many people asking me daily about "How do I learn to program" or
"Where do I start, what language?". I think about 1 out of every 500
people list Python when listing the languages they heard are good. Every
time, the one's that did mention Python, just liked how it sounded.
This, of course, is from people that have *no* to *little* programming
background. Always, the number one language they say they want to learn
right off, is Perl, then C and C++ respectively. This is not a joke, and
by lurking in most common NG's will reveal this to you. Basically,
Python has less notability, less people even know about it, and usually
find out about it after having had some experience with programming in
another language, hence; less people just trying to learn it to start
out, because they think that's what Perl is for. :-)
> Perl is probably popular because:
>
> 1) People think CGI means Perl, even though CGI can be done
> in any language.
Yes.
> 2) Perl was released before Python.
Yes.
> 3) Perl is less of a change, if you are coming from C/Shell/Unix,
> than Python is.
Yes. And more people talk about it, associate it with a learning
language and how to write a friggin' guest book or counter for their web
page.
>
> >And they do. And this is what
> >we get for making something that even stupid people can use. I hope that
> >Python should be someday cursed with one tenth the number of stupid people
> >who now write Perl. Then your newsgroup can be as messy as this one.
>
> What makes you think that the people who use Python are that different
> from the people that use Perl?
Because most people don't hear about it, as quickly or as easily, etc.
It's not as promoted and talked about amongst beginners, they all tell
each other to learn Perl! Again, most don't hear about Python, until
they see a thread like this in a NG advocating Python and wondering why
someone would use Perl. Then they check it out, if they know enough
about programming, then they'll see why they can use it, find it
interesting, etc. Try it out and maybe like it more, less or just enough
to use it. It's less reckless that way. Sure, there's poor Python
programmers, but there's far more poor Perl programmers. This can't be
argued against, so this "grouping" of examples is failing to make sense.
> Maybe "stupid", simply means, "prefers
> not to use a dollar sign to indicate a scalar type"?
No, you've completely missed the point. Say 10% of the people are
stupid, 99% of them start trying to learn Perl, 1% start learning
Python. Now remember, they are and always will be stupid. So, now
there's 9 out of 100 new users to Perl that are stupid, and 1 out of 100
stupid Python programmers. That's what Tom meant, I would bet, and I
think it's obvious.
>
> And the person you are implying is stupid (the one
> with,
> the unhappy manager is in actuality a brilliant
> programmer.
No, stupid people are stupid. He didn't say there were a lot of
brilliant programmers that are just being help back by Perl syntax, he
said they were stupid. I'm sure you can as easily surmise this scenario
by comparing it to anything else, but they still can't tie their damn
shoes, no matter what syntax any language uses, they are _stupid_,
understand?!? Hence; they will do _no_ better programming in Python over
Perl.. it's not the syntax that's the problem.
Does this help to enlighten the situation for you, at all?... Or are you
just going to keep assuming everything to be a fact (or the most
rational reason) based on what you find to your liking or how you wish
to interpret all of it?
--
Regards,
Tim Greer : webmaster@chatbase.com | software@linkworm.com
The ChatBase: http://www.chatbase.com | 250,000+ hits daily Worldwide!
TRG Software: http://www.linkworm.com | CGI scripts in Perl/C, & more.
Unix/NT/Novell Administration, Security, Web Design, ASP, SQL, & more.
Freelance Programming & Consulting, Musician, Martial Arts, +Sciences.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 19:34:41 -0700
From: TRG Software: Tim Greer <webmaster@chatbase.com>
Subject: Re: Why use Perl when we've got Python?!
Message-Id: <37B778C1.E46A7E45@chatbase.com>
Chad Netzer wrote:
>
> Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> [slightly fixed example below]
>
> > a = 10
> > b = ["alpha", "beta", "gamma"]
> > c = { "fred" : "wilma", "barney" : "betty" }
> > print "a is", a
> > print "b nought is", b[0]
> > print "c fred is", c["fred"]
> >
> > Go ahead. Grab it all with your mouse and punch it all in. You can't
> > do it.
>
> Sure I can, although I first type the following line:
>
> if 1:
>
> Most of the differences betwen the languages seem trivial, and
> ultimately, philosophical. Some people will naturally like the Perl
> way of doing things, while other will prefer Python. They are both
> great languages for solving many types of problems.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, Perl rocks and Python rocks also. Tcl sucks,
> though. :-)
Now people are talking down about Tcl? I could go on about Tcl very
easily and tell you what it's good for, but I could care less.
> Chad Netzer
> chad@vision.arc.nasa.gov
>
> PS. I find Tom's Python criticisms a bit off base, at times, but they
> are mostly valid answers to the original question, and certainly not
> inappropriate for c.l.perl.m.
Then how are they "off base"? Relevant replies are not welcome from Tom,
simply because he's so involved with Perl and has authored books? If
anything, wouldn't that indicate to you, that he's one of the more
qualified people here to defend the language against misrepresentations
by people that certainly don't know enough about the language to make
such statements about the flaws (all based on their own dislikes of the
keywords and syntax)?
> However, Tom also has books to sell,
I doubt he _has_ to sell them. Further, I don't recall him making
mention of any books of his, did you? Furthermore, that's a cheap shot.
Out of all the years I've been here and seen Tom offer help and answers
to people's questions, I have YET to see him tell someone to buy his
book! I find your post offensive, as probably does this entire NG! Tom
kindly points these people to the Perl DOCs, for FREE information, and
doesn't make mention of any books! This from a man who's either authored
or co-authored the best books on Perl available on the market! Spends
time offering more to the Perl community then anyone else I've ever
seen, over the many years I've been here. I don't know Tom, but I'm
always amazed at how he finds the time AND desire to offer so much, yet
this is your reasoning of why Tom's such a Perl advocate? Sorry pal, but
if you care to look in ay archives you can find, he was just as much an
advocate before he published any books, and I'm sure defended Perl tooth
and nail, which is one of the reasons why you're here now, in this NG,
talking about how much Perl "Rocks".
> and
> that end is not achieved by turning people away from Perl. Just
> consider that when interpreting his criticisms.
Why don't you try and consider what you're saying. Is he expected to
admit that Perl can't do what Python can (After all, that's the subject
title of this entire thread!), even when Perl _can_, or he's suspected
of trying to keep people interested in the language for his own profit?
You've not only missed the point of Tom's posts, but the entire point
behind Perl!
--
Regards,
Tim Greer : webmaster@chatbase.com | software@linkworm.com
The ChatBase: http://www.chatbase.com | 250,000+ hits daily Worldwide!
TRG Software: http://www.linkworm.com | CGI scripts in Perl/C, & more.
Unix/NT/Novell Administration, Security, Web Design, ASP, SQL, & more.
Freelance Programming & Consulting, Musician, Martial Arts, +Sciences.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 20:00:30 -0700
From: TRG Software: Tim Greer <webmaster@chatbase.com>
Subject: Re: Why use Perl when we've got Python?!
Message-Id: <37B77ECE.5E744208@chatbase.com>
John Stevens wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:46:44 -0400, Ala Qumsieh <aqumsieh@matrox.com> wrote:
> >Ian Clarke <I.Clarke@NOSPAM.strs.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >Ok. So you say you have tried to learn both languages, at the same
> >time, and ended up prefering Python over Perl.
> >
> >That's good. You seem to have made up your mind. Why do you need
> >someone else to convince you otherwise?
>
> He is looking to see if Perl has functionality that makes it worth
> while to spend the extra time and effort required to learn Perl.
And what did you offer this person in advice? A person who, it appears
just randomly shot that question out to start a flame war between the
languages, moreover, he didn't seem genuinely interested in a real
answer. You were only adding to this flame.
> IOW, if you could say: Perl does this, and Python can't, and Ian
> were to find that particular bit of functionality worth the cost
> of learning Perl, he might choose to learn Perl.
Right, but you don't seem to know enough (or remember enough) to explain
the advantages or disadvantages. Did you ask him what sort of
applications he was intending to write? How much time he planned or
could allow to learn? What sort of programming backgrounds, etc.? How
are you to know? Maybe Perl is better understood by him? You don't know,
you just told stories about how you don't like it, because it's obvious
that you don't understand it enough to like it. Ok, in fairness, I'll
say, you don't like it enough already, with your own experience to want
to learn it indepth enough to learn it well enough.
> >Different people have
> >different tastes, even when it comes to your programming language of
> >choice.
Exactly.
> If the only difference between Perl and Python is style, not
> functionality, then you've answered his question: there is no
> need for him to learn Perl.
Who said anything about style being the only difference? Languages can
be a little different, or drastically different! If someone asks if they
should learn Perl, and states that they are an expert in C and can do
anything, then no one's going to say they should. People will point the
guy to the references and the Perl site, so he can see what it can do or
not do. I would only suggest that he look into it a little, because he
may enjoy it, I know I do.
> >Maybe 1, maybe none, maybe many. How would knowing this number help
> >you?
>
> Quite a bit. If a large number have learned Python first,
> then
> migrated to Perl, maybe that is because Perl has a generally
> useful function that Python does not.
Maybe so... No one's arguing that. But the fact that so many don't have
a clue about Python and so many are new to programming choose Perl, it's
hard to say anything, not unless you want to do tests and find out whom
the real programmers are, the professionals and ask _them_ (not anyone
else), why they program in a certain language, or prefer it. But that's
not what this NG is about, it's for people that have already decided to
learn Perl, or are trying to, for whatever reasons. Why don't you read
up on both of them, in depth, find out what they both offer, how and
why, etc. and then pose the questions about "I didn't see this offered,
is there something similar or the same that can do this"? Find out
before just ranting on and on about this and that, nothing's been
proven.
> >If your goal was to learn Perl, then you took a wrong direction.
>
> The first step, is to find out what something costs. Before
> learning Perl, it makes sense to find out whether the cost of
> learning it will be worth the result.
Perl, for many people, is usually easy to learn. It's usually fast
development for most people. It's the same of Python, it depends on
_who_ is programming, how good they are, how smart they are, what
comprehension they have, etc. for the language they're using. There's a
lot of factors with any language or comparison.
> >I don't think Perl has anything significant to offer over Python when
> >it comes to functionality. The inverse is also true. Except maybe for
> >regular expressions.
>
> Python and Perl's RE's are now identical.
>
> >But, IMO, Perl gives you the freedom to code the way you like. Python,
> >OTOH, restricts you. A lot of people like Python because it restricts
> >you and gives you only one way to do things. I think, the reason is
> >that they are afraid of making choices.
>
> No. It is because spending the time to figure out that somebody
> said the same thing, only in a different way, is a waste of time
> and money.
The point is, if you knew Perl, you shouldn't and won't have problems
fixing bugs, updating code, or "figuring it out" in general. Case in
point, and undeniably so, if someone codes badly, messy, etc. then it
doesn't matter much what language it's in. However, some languages do
have such restraints (even for the better, in some people's cases), to
where it's an advantage, because it restricts them to not be able to
code as messy, etc. Sure, but that is still the fault of the previous
programmer. Are you to say, even if you knew a language was far superior
then any others, you'd stay clear of it because it allows the programmer
to be sloppy? Don't use that as an issue, it may matter some, depending
on the circumstances, but usually it's not.
> >"Should I use this idiom? or
> >that one? or maybe this one? I don't know! Let me post to usenet and
> >see what the experts do." It also makes maintaining programs easier
> >(especially for beginners -- not so much for experts).
>
> Easier for both, actually.
>
> >Perl on the other hand gives you more flexibility.
>
> Which gets you. . . what? Flexibility implies functionality that
> Perl has that Python doesn't.
In a way, in some aspects. But it depends on your "opinion" and what
you're talking about.
> So, what is this functionality
> that Perl posesses, that Python doesn't, that you describe as
> flexibility?
Read the Docs, please.
> >If the brain were limited to doing good things only, our ability to
> >apply it to different domains will be greatly limited as well. If the
> >brain gave us one way to travel (crawl), or one language to speak
> >(probably an ancestor of hebrew), or one choice of food (dunno,
> >milk?!), or the chance to do good only, then its application space
> >will be a fraction of what it is now. Great inventions could be used
> >for both good and evil. That's the price you pay.
>
> So, again, the question is: if Python only allows you to crawl, what
> particular functionality of Perl equates to "walking"?
Can you crawl faster then you can walk? Is walking useful to you? Will
you ever need to? Do you live underground where you have 3 feet of space
to move around from top to bottom?
> >Perl is like the human brain. It sets you free.
>
> A computer language can set you free? ;->
Perl Zen... :-)
> Interesting. . .
Unlike this thread. :-)
--
Regards,
Tim Greer : webmaster@chatbase.com | software@linkworm.com
The ChatBase: http://www.chatbase.com | 250,000+ hits daily Worldwide!
TRG Software: http://www.linkworm.com | CGI scripts in Perl/C, & more.
Unix/NT/Novell Administration, Security, Web Design, ASP, SQL, & more.
Freelance Programming & Consulting, Musician, Martial Arts, +Sciences.
------------------------------
Date: 1 Jul 99 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Users-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 1 Jul 99)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
The Perl-Users Digest is a retransmission of the USENET newsgroup
comp.lang.perl.misc. For subscription or unsubscription requests, send
the single line:
subscribe perl-users
or:
unsubscribe perl-users
to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.misc (and this Digest), send your
article to perl-users@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
To request back copies (available for a week or so), send your request
to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu with the command "send perl-users x.y",
where x is the volume number and y is the issue number.
The Meta-FAQ, an article containing information about the FAQ, is
available by requesting "send perl-users meta-faq" from
almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu. The real FAQ, as it appeared last in the
newsgroup, can be retrieved with the request "send perl-users FAQ" from
almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Due to their sizes, neither the Meta-FAQ nor
the FAQ are included in the digest.
The "mini-FAQ", which is an updated version of the Meta-FAQ, is
available by requesting "send perl-users mini-faq" from
almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V9 Issue 549
*************************************
