Slashdot Mirror


Perl 5.8.1 Released

langles writes "Perl 5.8.1 has been released. Read the official announcement, then download it from a CPAN mirror near you. If you've been following the Perl5 Porters List, you'll know this version was very well tested before they released it. However, there may be some modules that will need to be fixed before they will work with this release." The announcement also contains full details on incompatibilities and known issues, so give it a once over before upgrading, especially if from a pre-5.8 version.

144 comments

  1. Already.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Damn, Slackware 9.1 is out of date already...

  2. This is good news by Sh0t · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...as I've encounted a few script problems with the last few perl incarnations. Could have been the libraries however.

    But I have an honest confession.

    Python has become my scripting language of choice over the last 2 years.

    Does that mean I have a problem?

    TO put things in perspective, I was an 0311 for 4 years so maybe that's why I have these recurring nightmares of perl necklaces and pythons tcling me.

    1. Re:This is good news by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Python has become my scripting language of choice over the last 2 years.

      Does that mean I have a problem?
      No, it just means you got tired of writing code that looks like line noise. ;)

      Seriously, scripting language holy wars are even sillier than other holy wars. I use Perl, Python, and PHP regularly (and both MySQL and PostgreSQL, on both Linux and BSD) choosing whichever seems best for the task at hand. (Yes, I know that I'm very lucky to have a job that allows me to do this.) And as a benefit, I've become pretty good at porting between various combinations of these languages, servers, and platforms. The underlying logic is a hell of a lot more important than the flavor-of-the-month.
      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:This is good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Heres a thought, why waste your time reading insane gibberish, when there is much more to perl then its obfusication contest. I'm quite sure one could code trash in any lang.

    3. Re:This is good news by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      As someone who is not a very good perl hacker (I am not a programmer) but who has to write programs anyway, I was glad to actually read the article (no, I am not new here) and find out about the UTF8 problems with 5.8.0. I had been too lazy and ignorant to search for it earlier, but it does explain why some of my code broke when I went from 5.6.x to 5.8. Guess I should have read the docs, since I went through some hoops to change/fix what I didn't understand, and still don't.

      The cool thing is, I still get paid for this, even though I have no idea wtf I am doing. Gotta love America.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    4. Re:This is good news by alien_blueprint · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously, scripting language holy wars are even sillier than other holy wars. I use Perl, Python, and PHP regularly

      I agree! I'm happy to hear someone else say it. I use both Python and Perl continuously. My code isn't unreadable in either language. Yes, I've had other people work on my Perl code, and I've been able to read my own years later. No problem. OTOH, I'm currently refactoring Java code that is an incomprehensible mess in places. The fact is that the language is not the problem if your code is rubbish.

      I was just reading a republished article of Larry Wall's in "Best of the Perl Journal Vol 3". To quote, "Python is like MTV. It rocks, but after a while everything just looks the same". That about sums it up.

      Perl's nice. Python's nice. Learn both, you will learn something new and interesting, I guarantee it. Features from each regularly end up in the other anyway, so you'll be ahead of the curve :)

    5. Re:This is good news by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      how the hell do you not lose your job, but a cgi programmer who has been doing it for years and went to school to learn the skills of software engineering loses his/her job?

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    6. Re:This is good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Karma, man. It's all karma. And not the slashdot kind.

    7. Re:This is good news by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To be fair, it's probably easier to write unreadable but still useful code in Perl than in any other language (and I'd say Java is second) while Python does strongly encourage code that has, at the very least, a logical and easily understandable form. (You can still obfuscate it with bad variable names and the like, of course.) PHP is somewhere in the middle, IMO.

      But yeah -- it is entirely possible to write well-documented, well-organized Perl that other people (or you, well after you wrote it) can read, as you say. Actually, IMO, it's easier to write the code this way, once you get into the habit. Organizing the code well on screen helps you organize the thought processes in your head. Some programmers (and I do think that Perl programmers are particularly prone to this) seem to take a childlike delight in writing unreadable code. I maintain that people who do this deliberately are bad programmers, no matter how impressive their other skills may be.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    8. Re:This is good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Personally, I write a lot of perl and I make it a high priority to make the code as clear as possible. All my subs get at least a few lines of documentation, explaining their purpose and expected inputs and outputs (and what happens on failure), and if the module is really important I'll even write a man page for it, using POD. I tend to shy away from "kewl" code *unless* it's in a tight loop and has a significant performance advantage. And anything weird gets commented. For the most part though, there isn't much difference between my Perl and C style. I think Perl gets a bad rap because it was very popular when the WWW exploded in the early 90's and there were lots of non-programmers writting perl scripts, and they didn't understand the big picture.

    9. Re:This is good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I make it a point to write clear and concise code in Perl. Just because I hear it over and over how Perl IS line noise. No it is not. It CAN be line noise. It doesn't have to be.

      That is the programmers fault if it is.

    10. Re:This is good news by Bromrrrrr · · Score: 1

      Does that mean I have a problem?

      Yes, but apparently you're recovering :-)

      --

      What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
    11. Re:This is good news by ThatDamnMurphyGuy · · Score: 1

      Amen. The more tools/languages/code you learn, the better you are. Some languages are better than others for certain things. Being a well rounded programmer never hurt anyone.

      Sometimes just learning a new language keeps you out of the day to day rut, stress, and interest loss.

    12. Re:This is good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm quite sure one could code trash in any lang.
      <br><br>
      I totally agree. If one sets forth to do so, any language at all could become a pointless jumble of crap.<br><br>

      That's why Ada deserves kudos. Ada stops crap at compile time.

    13. Re:This is good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Does that mean I have a problem?"

      Yes. Thank you for asking.

    14. Re:This is good news by binary+paladin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Speak no more of such blasphemy you infidels! Only unbelievers would make such a ridiculous statement.

    15. Re:This is good news by metamatic · · Score: 1
      Python has become my scripting language of choice over the last 2 years. Does that mean I have a problem?

      Only if you have a different prefered tab size to other people, and try to share code with them.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    16. Re:This is good news by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      "No, it just means you got tired of writing code that looks like line noise"

      You can write stuff in English which reads like crap too, doesn't stop some people from using the language to write poems.

      Same with Perl.

    17. Re:This is good news by skillet-thief · · Score: 1

      I'm always surprised about Perl's reputation for being hard to read. The perl community
      seems to generally put a lot of emphasis on readable code.

      Is the reputation for obfuscation just based on regexes?

      --

      Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire

    18. Re:This is good news by TheLink · · Score: 1

      To the people talk about Perl being a write once language, yes Perl tends to be write once but not usually because it is hard to read, but it's because it is common and possible to actually _reuse_ code. Why rewrite code when you don't have to:

      www.cpan.org

      There are TONS and TONS of code there and significant quantities are actually useful and usable.

      The perl modules seem to be written by people who actually use them in _real_life_.

      Unreadable code? Who cares man :). A good design is where you don't have to read + understand the code to reuse the _whole_ for something else.

      --
    19. Re:This is good news by chrome · · Score: 1

      They mod you flamebait? God, some people just have no sense of humour.

      I thought your comment was very funny.

    20. Re:This is good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I make it a point to write clear and concise code in Perl. Just because I hear it over and over how Perl IS line noise. No it is not. It CAN be line noise.

      The good thing about Python, Lua, Tcl etc.... is that they can NEVER be line noise, no matter how bad the programmer is. The fact that you're making an effort to write clear concise code in Perl is indicative of the fact that writing programs in Perl is wasting some of your energy
    21. Re:This is good news by sashang · · Score: 1

      To be fair, it's probably easier to write unreadable but still useful code in Perl than in any other language (and I'd say Java is second) while Python does strongly encourage code that has, at the very least, a logical and easily understandable form.
      The apparent usefulness of Perl (like Visual Basic) is only indicative of the large number of modules it incorporates. It's got nothing to do with properties of the language itself. Personally I think the usefulness of a language should be measured using the number of constructs it supports, not the modules used. Scalability, the ability to say what you mean concisely and the ability to write correct code should also play a role in the evaluation. Of course, when you're talking about the usefulness of a language in a broader sense with application development in mind, by all means, factor in the modules supported, speed of learning the new language, resources available etc...

    22. Re:This is good news by Shardis · · Score: 1

      Nah, regexes aren't the main 'cause (imho). Basic regex notation (what probably %90 of people that use 'em out there use) is pretty easily recognizable as the core syntaxes once you've spent a little time grubbing through docs. It's just that there are a lot of shortcut notations and alternate usages possible with basically everything else.

      One of perl's little catchphrases is "There's more than one way to do it." The language is extremely flexable.

      I totally agree with the poster a few levels up, the only time I really grind out stuff that's essentially horrible looking anymore (been compared to Vogon poetry and line noise a few times too) is when I'm under serious time constraints, am just writing a one use program and don't care, or just plain need to wrap things down as tightly as possible for speed/memory reasons and can't figure out a way to do it more efficiently... ...and then documentation is semi-important if you walk away from the program for long enough to become unfamiliar with it's entire code structure. I've looked back at some old programs where I've not left comments and it prolly took me 10 times longer to figure out what was going on than to just type out the code. Bad programming essentially. :P

      It's very possible to write code that basically does look like line noise... with the caveat that it's not especially easy to write really really obfuscated code if that's what you're intentionally going for, as even the author has to be able to recognize what the hell is going on as well - and usually relies on their own ancilliary documentation for stuff like the obfuscated perl contest.

      Mostly I tend to think this is just done by geeks for brag or impression purposes, just like schoolyard bullies get their kicks by pushing around others on the schoolyard 'cause they're bigger or whatever. Not that I'm saying it's intended in the same spirit, but it's the same "gee, look what I can do and you can't (even understand what I'm doing!)" type of thing. ;)

      That being said, I just love perl. Quick to write, execute, and very flexable and powerful. I'm glad that readable code has gotten back in vogue again in the last (insert semi-long time frame here) or so, it makes things so much easier to read/debug/improve and use. ;)

    23. Re:This is good news by Shardis · · Score: 1

      Ug, I care. ;) That's almost exactly one reason I don't use some of the crappy CPAN modules out there.

      If I can't figure out what's going on in them, how the hell do I know it works as advertised with a quick scan?

      I'd rather just take a quick glance at the (whatever) code than worrying about adding yet another dependancy, and one that probably takes more time to read/convert/integrate than to just do it yourself from scratch.

      That being said, there are a hell of a lot of great modules out there!

      If you don't know a certain EDI standard, or telnet options, GA and ANSI escape sequences, or whatever tedious little routine you're trying to add in that requires some of the more esoteric knowledge out there, it can be a tremendously useful advantage - if the code is readable!

      Time::TrulyRandom (I think that's it anyway - the hardware inaccuracy based one), and some of the core networking, crypto, and xml munging kits have been absolutely invaluable to me in some of my endeavors... and have helped me to really understand what's going on in my programs instead of just taking someone else's word for it.

    24. Re:This is good news by Shardis · · Score: 1

      I'm posting WAY too much in this thread, but your comparison of perl to VB just made me vaguely queasy. ;)

      "The apparent usefulness of Perl (like Visual Basic) is only indicative of the large number of modules it incorporates."

      I don't think that the flexibility of a programming language can be in any way be affected by the ancillary code produced later. The flexability or usefulness of a language, I think, is apparent in what you can do with it, period.

      Basically either you can do something or you can't. I'll admit to not knowing anything major about VB - I've quite intentionally stayed as far away from it as I can... but I do know that I've never had a problem forming any type of "construct" that I've ever really needed. I'm a bit curious as to what's being considered a "construct" in this context...

      *shrugs* I'll just post my thoughts and move on...

      I just got a bit irked at comparing perl to VB I guess. I tend to think perl is an extremely good balance between flexibility of the language itself and coding efficiency / development time.

      Putting together a multithreaded and multiprocessor aware application to serve basically any type of content you want and can communicate with anything you can think of at either the raw socket level (or even act at as high level as a web server) in a matter of minutes - you'll have to admit - is very flexible for what most people consider a scripting language.

      I've got pretty descent sized perl library that I've written myself as required for things like EDI translation and mapping, hardware/platform detection, networking, database interface, and various other sundry client/server processes though. Even without those, you can get the basics in place in very short order...

      I've do have a very obvious professional bent towards data manipulation and basic networking though. ;)

    25. Re:This is good news by Tukla · · Score: 1

      Bitter, are we?

      Yeah. Me, too.

    26. Re:This is good news by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      how the hell do you not lose your job, but a cgi programmer who has been doing it for years and went to school to learn the skills of software engineering loses his/her job?

      Because programming is a tiny part of my job. We don't need a full time, or part time, programmer. I don't lose my job because I can adjust. Technically, I run the marketing dept for a manufacturer. But I do photography, website development, IT and several other tasks.

      How I keep my job (easily) is because I am not great at any one task. I am good at many tasks. Once a single task becomes irrelevent, it doesn't affect my employment. I am the proverbial "jack of all trades, master of none". We do subcontract, but seldom. This means the company I work for can accomplish some of the same tasks that only a company many times larger (with huge staffs) could do. Flexibility.

      Being a jack of all trades has downsides as well, such as being taken for granted in so many ways. I spend at least 10 hours a week studying. Its not like i just started typing and programming came out, I DID have to learn it, and the other tasks I do. So I am self taught at many things. Some I can just get by with (if we seldom use the ability) and some I excell at (if we use it alot). Another downside is that it is hard to put this in perspective in a resume.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    27. Re:This is good news by binary+paladin · · Score: 1

      I guess so. I wasn't being serious. Heh. Oh well...

  3. yeah! by VAXGeek · · Score: 0, Funny

    And I, for one, welcome our new Perl 5.8.1 overlords!

    --
    this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
    1. Re:yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with you 99%.

  4. Amen to that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (nt)

  5. Just got a new job... by Basje · · Score: 4, Funny

    and now they release both a new perl and a new slackware, after 3 months of unemployment. I say they do it to pester me.

    --
    the pun is mightier than the sword
  6. DB_File with Berkeley DB 4.1.25 fixed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A good enough reason to upgrade

    I got tired of the old 5.8.0 failing after putting DB 4.1.25 down

    Oh, and slashdot is a few hours late (naughty slashdot), I noticed perl 5.8.1 was out in the early hours.

    1. Re:DB_File with Berkeley DB 4.1.25 fixed by ErisCalmsme · · Score: 1

      Actually, the guys at linuxfromscratch had a patch available that fixed that problem a while ago... not that it matters now of course...but heres a link to the db 4.1.25 instructions which points out that you will have to patch perl if you plan to compile it with db 4 support...

      --
      Chaos is Divine *
  7. Re:Mod me off topic but... by Sh0t · · Score: 2, Informative

    Click here
    You mean this one?

  8. Larry Wall takes a dump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    We'll have the full details posted on Slashdot momentarily...

  9. Re:Mod me off topic but... by stevesliva · · Score: 1
    Python 2.3.1 final was released this week. Where was the Slashdot story about that one?
    Did you submit one?
    --
    Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
  10. Re:Mod me off topic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one really cared. That would be like CNN hype'n the new yugo.

  11. And of a classic on-line argument? by alien_blueprint · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A quick pass through the changes uncovered:


    Miscellaneous Enhancements

    map in void context is no longer expensive. map is now context aware, and will not construct a list if called in void context.


    This must have been added to *end* the ceaseless wars over whether using "map" in a void context is lame, or not. This argument after repeated dowsing attempts, would constantly spring back into life with renewed vigor on comp.lang.perl.misc and other places.

    Now it doesn't matter. Argument over. I think I'll miss it. Sort of. I can't remember a time when people weren't fighting about this. Next I suppose we'll be sorting out the whole "who would win, the Enterprise or a star destroyer?" mess ;)

    For those who don't know what I'm on about: "map" applies a subroutine or code block to each element in a list. Some people would use it to iterate over lists, instead of using "for". Perl is now smart enough to notice if you're not using the result of "map", and so won't generate the result list in that particular case.

    The whole argument came down over whether to say:

    map { do_stuff; } @list;

    or

    do_stuff for @list;

    So the "for" people would, rightly, say that the "map" was inefficient if you weren't using the result list created by map, and the "map" people said that Perl should just figure it out and do the right thing.

    Actually, now I think about it, this is going to make the argument *worse*, as now they are functionally equivalent, and it will just come down to taste! No! They don't know what they've done ... now it will never die! :)

    1. Re:And of a classic on-line argument? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just a "map { do; } @chicks;" kind of guy.

    2. Re:And of a classic on-line argument? by boomgopher · · Score: 1

      map in void context is no longer expensive. map is now context aware, and will not construct a list if called in void context.

      This sounds like some Zen Buddhist zoan.

      --
      Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
    3. Re:And of a classic on-line argument? by chrome · · Score: 1

      I tried a haiku:

      void context maps good
      map is now context aware
      won't construct a list

      Not sure how I feel about it though :/

    4. Re:And of a classic on-line argument? by alien_blueprint · · Score: 1

      I'm just a "map { do; } @chicks;" kind of guy.

      I know you were joking, but:

      do for @chicks;

      has an entirely different meaning, doesn't it? Well, sir, I congratulate you. You have discovered the long sought after example where the difference between "map" and "for" is significant semantically to the reader.

      What a shame you posted anonymously. I can only credit "anonymous coward" with this one.

      [and before the language lawyers start on about it, yes, "do" is a reserved word, so it's "&do for @chicks"]

  12. Re:breakage: ( Score 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In any sane language reading from a closed file would be flagged as an error anyway.

  13. Re:Mod me off topic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you saying slashdot is comparable to CNN? Surely you jest...

  14. Re:breakage: by alien_blueprint · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some code just deserves to be broken ;)

  15. Perl 5.81 AI Mind Modules by Mentifex · · Score: 1

    Perl modules for artificial intelligence must be kept current with the new Perl release.

    The Perl AI Weblog has some sample Perl AI code for the main Alife module of the Open-Source AI Mind in Perl.

    Register your own Perl weblog if you are writing AI or other good code to share in Perl.

  16. Does that mean.... by ShadowRage · · Score: 1

    Does that mean the guys at perl.org are saying "I, for one, welcome our new Slashdot overlords!" as well?
    luckily, they have the bandwidth to get slashdotted.

    1. Re:Does that mean.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      dude, use.perl.org is the *same* *servers* as slashdot.

    2. Re:Does that mean.... by ShadowRage · · Score: 1

      precisely.

  17. Re:Mod me off topic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL, no. They both have very diverse pros and cons. However IMHO, Slashdot is a far better read.

  18. and debian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    perl, slackware, gaim, etc... what about debian?

    1. Re:and debian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Debian's package manager suite is (mostly) in Perl, so there ya go.
      The only thing that bugs me is that they're still using plain old text files for the package databases in /var/lib/dpkg. With several thousand packages, it makes things a bit slow on older machines... Can't fathom why they haven't switched to Berkeley DB already...

  19. Perl 5.8.1 main features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    - both "pearl" or "purl" spellings now allowable
    - builtin Java VM for the "hard bits" developers had trouble writing.
    - a formal written apology by Larry Wall for the Perl syntax

  20. Flamebait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    TRUE: C is a programming language
    TRUE: Linux is a kernel
    FALSE: Perl is easy to read and has a great syntax
    TRUE: Saying Perl is hard to read is not flamebait
    1. Re:Flamebait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be too young to know what "hard to read" means. Check out INTERCAL. Hell, check out the Linux kernel source.

    2. Re:Flamebait? by matzim · · Score: 1

      TRUE: C is a programming language
      TRUE: Linux is a kernel
      FALSE: Perl is easy to read and has a great syntax
      TRUE: Saying Perl is hard to read is not flamebait

      FALSE: Perl is the only language one can obfuscate
      TRUE: Perl can be written clearly
      TRUE: Saying "Saying Perl is hard to read is not flamebait" is ironic

  21. What Steve Jobs had to say about Perl 5.8.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How are you going to market this Perl thing? What? No marketting? That's fucking stupid. What about the case? You're not putting it in case? Are you retarded? You should give the contract for the case to Frog Design - you'll SHIT YOUR PANTS when you see what they can do. Errm.. wait - I did shit my pants.

  22. Re:breakage: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    the applications were already broken.

  23. Re:Can we use languages not by lunatics? by JanneM · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Um, yes he is, but the language is good anyway. Rejecting Perl because of this is about as stupid as rejecting Sendmail because its author is gay (which, apparently some people in the lunatic fringe have done).

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
  24. Re:Sorry, but I cannot recommend Perl. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    80% of paren'ts claims were pulled out right from his arse, 67% of them while smoking crack.
    Man, I love statistics!

  25. Yep! by Balinares · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, this is an excellent point. Case in point. Basically, everything can be done in any Turing-complete language (which is something I wish the "But you can do everything in Visual Basic!" sales people would get...).

    My feeling is that, when people say something like "This language's code is easier to read", they don't mean as much the language's syntax, as the coding practices that the language's structure encourages.

    See "There should be more than one way to do it" as opposed to "There should be one -- and preferably only one -- obvious way to do it", for instance. Different philosophies that fit different languages that fit different coding practices. You'll note that both principles do correlate with the main selling point of their respective language, namely, Perl's ability to be the shortest path from 'nothing' to 'job's done', and Python's knack at remaining damn readable through thousands of lines of code even for programmers not yet involved in the project (among other things).

    Down the road it's only a matter of goals, and picking the most appropriate tool to reach that goal. The tricky part, of course, being that 'appropriate' is a relative thing, and sometimes a somewhat unfitting tool is more appropriate in terms of practicality than something you don't yet know and would have to learn from scratch.

    Oh, and zealotry is sclerosis of the mind.

    --

    -- B.
    This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
  26. Cat got your tongue, slashcode == lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    im on dial up, need diffs between rc5 and release
    OR BETTER YET
    CVS ACCESS

  27. Pythoneers congratulates Perl geeks! by bolideflyer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What different between Larry Wall wrote program in Python, and the same one Guido Van Rossum wrote in Perl? Just Python code few lines longer. The real difference is that Larry's code works from the first run time, but Guido's still not and he is still figuring out why... ;-)

    I would like to celebrate this good news with Perl geeks just because Perl is not VisualBasic or VBScript or other M$ product. ;-). But I would like wish to all Perl hackers to have the same productivity, fast and hight fun during developing as we, Pythoneers have!

    Hope, with Perl 6 you will... And all Slashdot members even will enjoy Structured Text as we can, instead to write HTML tags... ;-)

  28. Re:Can we use languages not by lunatics? by bolideflyer · · Score: 0

    What?? Author of the Sendmail -- gay?! This is news for me... Thank you much! This helps me argue why I should switch to Postfix. ;-)

  29. Re:Sorry, but I cannot recommend Perl. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my experience, people who bash Perl simply do not understand it. You can write beautiful and very scalable code in Perl. At the same, you can find a lot of very ugly C/C++/Java code written by people who obviously had no clue what they were doing while writing it.
    Bottom line -- don't bash the language. If someone is using a hammer to iron their clothes, it's not the hammers` fault that the end result looks like crap.

  30. Re:Can we use languages not by lunatics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rejecting Perl because of this is about as stupid as rejecting Sendmail because its author is gay

    Seriously?

    Excuse me, I have some configuration to do...

    (j/k of course).

  31. Idea by 6e7a · · Score: 1
    Perl's ability to be the shortest path from 'nothing' to 'job's done', and Python's knack at remaining damn readable through thousands of lines of code

    Has anyone ever tried coding in Perl to get the job done quickly and then converting that code into Python for further maintenance? That might leverage the strengths of both languages.

  32. Re:Can we use languages not by lunatics? by pooh666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This whole list of posts so far is really depressing. At times Slashdot is a great source of information, at times it is just worthless. It all depends on the people posting the comments. Moderators, I know you only have what you are given to work with, but 90% of theses posts are totaly off topic. Larry Wall and the shit in his pants have nothing to do with a new release of Perl. A release that does some pretty damn cool things BTW like making it possible to switch on and off the new signel behaviour with an ENV var.

    If anyone wants to know where Perl is going in the future and why it is a damn good lang to stick with, read the O`Reilly book "Perl 6 Essentials" I think a lot of programmers, even some pretty experenced ones confuse syntax that they don't like with "bad" but as has been quoted over and over Perl is about having fun with programming, and being able to make your master work, or being able to dig your own grave. I very well know there are good and bad ways to program in any lang. Even PHP which I tend to dislike, I have to admit most of the reason is because of the nightmare applications that chew on their own tails to such a degree they are next to impossible to figure out. But I know it is possible to do better work in PHP than that. Perl started out in exactly that way with the oh so lovely Matt's script archive Perl 4 type of scripting. But back then it really was *just* a scripting lang. Now it is much more developed. A simple rule of thought that many of you guys need to consider from Aristotle that I here paraphrase; If a man is sitting on a chair and you maintain he is sitting, you are correct. If he gets up, but you still maintain he is sitting, you are incorrect. Sounds like duh huh? But it is the cleanest way I have every heard expressed the idea that if you base your opinons on information that is outdated, then your opinons can be just plain wrong.

    Thanks,

    Eric

  33. Re:Mod me off topic but... by ultrabot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Python 2.3.1 [python.org] final was released this week. Where was the Slashdot story about that one?

    And they haven't even got a topic for Python yet... *grumble*.

    Slashdot is quite a bit biased towards perl, probably because the engine has been coded in perl. Let's forgive them for that. However, it's a shame that a language that seems so far to be the only free-speech-free-beer language capable of taking on Java and C# gets so little attention.

    Will it take a Chandler release for all of you to wake up? Obviously I'm treading the wrong territory here, this being a Perl article an all. By hacking w/ Python, many Perl mongers would be furthering the OSS movement more, not to mention their own careers...

    As far as py2.3.1 goes, it's hardly big news, it being just a bugfix release after all.

    --
    Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
  34. Re:breakage: by KrispyKringle · · Score: 2, Informative
    As always, Tirel, I'm impressed by your trolling.

    To clarify for those who don't know what he's talking about, neither does he. It doesn't make sense to read from an unopened filehandle; this is not something you can do in 5.6. The whole point of filehandles is that you can open the file once and then use the handle to read from it, rather than having to, say, open it every single time you want to access the file. If you haven't opened it first, of course, the filehandle is meaningless.

    And, no, I didn't fall for your troll. But I may as well let those of us who don't know Perl know that you don't, either. "Perl hacker" my ass.

  35. Fuck Unicode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    8 bits are all I need, baby!

    1. Re:Fuck Unicode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some cute asian chicks don't agree with you!
      No hanky-panky for you!

    2. Re:Fuck Unicode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if unicode will get me cute asian hanky-panky.. bring it on!!

  36. Re: You've missed the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The second option is preferrable.

    #!/usr/bin/perl
    use warnings;
    use strict;

    my @questions = qw(Java Python Perl C);
    my @punchlines = (
    "None. Change it once, and it's the same everywhere.",
    "One. He just stands below the socket and the world revolves around him.",
    "A million. One to change it, the rest to try and do it in fewer lines.",
    '"CHANGE?!!"'
    );
    print "Please enter a number between 1 and 4: ";
    my $selection = ;
    $selection -= 1;
    print "How many $questions[$selection] ";
    print "programmers does it take to change a lightbulb?\n\n";
    sleep 2;

  37. A coward's point of view... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't succeed in creating an account, but wanted badly to say a couple of things about perl...

    I've used perl for about 2 years and I absolutely love it. It puzzles why some people detest it so much. Every programming language requires getting used to, perl is no exception. I've written small programs in C++ and Java so I'm not speaking from ignorance about other programming languages.

    With perl, I've been able to perform tasks both big and small. Sometimes, with a couple of lines, I can achieve pretty amazing results, such as reading in huge inputs and converting them to the desired format. I never thought I could be creative with something as technical as text formatting. I discovered that creativity with perl.

    Say what you like but perl has empowered me.

    1. Re:A coward's point of view... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should look at awk and sed. They're languages designed to do text formatting and have been around a lot longer than Perl.

      It's a question on my mind whether Perl eventually replaces them both. I imagine eventually that ``awk'' and ``sed'' are just symlinks that invoke Perl to run to mimic their behaviour.

    2. Re:A coward's point of view... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No way, sed and awk will remain distinct if only because they're much lighter than having the entire perl suite installed. Nobody's gonna cram perl on rescue floppies or minimal installs. And they have less startup overhead too, which can sometimes be significant.
      And I say that even though I much prefer writing perl code. I hate having to constantly escape shell metacharacters in shell scripts calling sed, and consider that stuff much more "unreadable line noise" than typical perl code.

  38. Re:Can we use languages not by lunatics? by Mybrid · · Score: 1

    Nice post. Your concern and sincerity are commendable. Yahoo! Oops, wrong web site. I like the wild-west kinda of feel of slashdot, kinda the Internet before commercialism. I know that Microsoft has people (employees) who are paid (encouraged) to promote Microsoft on slashdot.org. Did you know that? It's kinda funny actually. I would never go to some website promoting MS and try to argue Unix. Thus I think slashdot.org is a good thing.

    How do you know when someone is being genuine? and not just tied to some agenda? I think there are many people with many agendas on slashdot and that's what makes it interesting. Defend or attack to your hearts content. Hopefully time teaches us to filter with a critical eye that which is meaningful written by those who care. As obviously you do which is why I chose to reply.

    All the best!
    -Mybrid

  39. Re:can't wait for 6! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    4. fail to get troops or money from other countries.
    5. ???
    6. continued disaster

  40. Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mensa member, beware of the high IQ

    Speaking as someone who has an IQ of 165, who the fuck cares? I was invited to a Mensa meeting once, and without a doubt they were the most pretentious twits I've ever met in my life.

    Only a pretentious twit would include the fact that s/he's a Mensa member in their sig. I'd bet you also make note of it on your resume as well.

  41. Please, tell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... what is an "0311" ?

    1. Re:Please, tell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marine Corps Rifleman

    2. Re:Please, tell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And hence about as bright as a rock. No wonder he had trouble with Perl.
      - an ex-28xx ;)

    3. Re:Please, tell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for your answer.

      Obviously, the military is a bit weird.

      "G.I Joe, take out that 0311 with your AK-47.
      Hey, that's not without rhyme!"

  42. Re:Can we use languages not by lunatics? by matzim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah! He's a Christian, and therefore a lunatic. Clearly Perl's not worth anything because of that. Oh, but he's not only one! Isn't Donald Knuth a Christian? Everybody, take your copies of ``The Art of Computer Programming'' and burn them. Knuth's clearly a nut job!

    But let's not stop there! Augustine, Martin Luther, Johann Sebastian Bach, Soren Kirkegaard, Reinhold Niebuhr, Thomas Moore, Dietrich Bonhoffer, John Wesley, Thomas Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, Martin Luther King, J.R.R. Tolkien... all obviously insane. I don't know why we keep printing their works.

    (Stupid troll. Made me flame.)

  43. Re:Mod me off topic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    My camel stepped on your python. ;(

  44. Re:Mod me off topic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Note: this isn't a flame!) I don't really care to learn another scripting language, whether it be python, php, tcl, or what have you. Perl already serves all my scripting needs, as it's quite flexible and has a lot of libraries already written for doing just about anything. And there's Perl 6 coming down the pipe in the future, to make it even more powerful... I already got too much work to do already, so I don't really want to spend all my free time learning more languages. :(

  45. Need some criteria. by Thinkit3 · · Score: 1

    There's enough crap out there you gotta sort through it somehow--and I'd prefer to use something from a bright. I'm sure Knuth's book is infected with decimal anyway--there's two strikes.

    --
    -Libertarian secular transhumanist
  46. PerlDoc Bliss! by C60 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Pod::Perldoc

    Complete rewrite. As a side-effect, no longer refuses to startup when run by root.

    Okay, okay, I know, root bad, now shut up. I don't know how many freakin times I've been hacking away at a perl script, as root and had to actually log in as a different user just to read the damn documentation. Thank Wall for small miracles.

    Not that I often read documentation, but anyway.

    --
    Karma: 0 (But I wield a mean +10 Vorpal Apathy)
    1. Re:PerlDoc Bliss! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to say it, but Larry Wall didn't have anything to do with the rewrite of Perldoc.

    2. Re:PerlDoc Bliss! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You naughty purl hax0r y0u.. how did you not know that perldoc -h could bring you "-U".. THAT would shut it up and make it run by any user.
      They didn't rewrite it so that wankers could run as root

    3. Re:PerlDoc Bliss! by hayne · · Score: 1
      I don't know how many freakin times I've been hacking away at a perl script, as root and had to actually log in as a different user just to read the damn documentation.
      You could have read the doc as root just by using the "-U" option to perldoc. That option basically says "I know it's insecure but do it anyway!".
  47. Paid by Microsoft? by Thinkit3 · · Score: 1

    I have to call BS on that one. I did look into the history of someone who admits to working for Microsoft (Dave Obsjano or something), but I highly doubt this person is paid to post to slashdot. I just don't think posts to slashdot figure in during the annual review.

    --
    -Libertarian secular transhumanist
  48. Re:Sorry, but I cannot recommend Perl. by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    trying to get the meaning of some Perl gibberish

    This confirms my solid belief that those who complain about Perl are the ones who do not know Perl.

    Those folks who bothered to learn Perl, usually find it readable, easy to maintain, quite robust, and easy to work with.

    The fact that it takes a "wild mix" (your words) of other languages to simulate similar behavior should say something about the expressive power of Perl, and the limitations of said in other languages.

    --

    "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

  49. Re:Sorry, but I cannot recommend Perl. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About your sig, if you haven't read this article, you should.

  50. Re:breakage: by asackett · · Score: 1

    It's always been a problem trying to read from a filehandle that is not open, just as it's always been a problem trying to fill a glass at a tap that's not open.

    Doesn't everyone who's been at this for more than a month or two check the return value of open() before trying to read the filehandle?

    --

    Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.

  51. What about Parrot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's been over two years and $200,000 and it can't run any variety of Perl. WTF is going on in that project, anyway? Larry ought to appoint a project leader or something.

  52. Re:Can we use languages not by lunatics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    rejecting Sendmail because its author is gay

    That explains all the backdoors in the Sendmail code!

  53. dude by CausticWindow · · Score: 1

    anybody with an iq of 165 should understand that his sig is just a troll. or maybe iq isn't the measure for intelligence it's made out to be.. hm.

    --
    How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
  54. Re:Sorry, but I cannot recommend Perl. by Bromrrrrr · · Score: 1

    You can write beautiful and very scalable code in Perl.

    I'm sure you could, the thing is I've never seen anything in Perl that was scalable let alone beautyful.

    I'm not trying to bash all Perl coders out there. But in my experience most Perl coders, when faced with "there's more than one way to do it" will choose the ugly, unreadable way.

    Yes, you can write unreadable code in any language just as you can write decent code in Perl. The difference is that in most languages you have to go out of your way to make code truly unreadable, while in Perl you have to go out of your way to make it readable.

    Furthermore my experience has been (beware: sweeping generalizations coming up) that Perl coders tend to care about Perl, Perl and nothing but Perl. Why normalize a DB when you have Perl, why make a decent user interface when anyone can see it was written in Perl and therefore superior by default!.

    And don't point me to slashcode, I've never actually looked at the code, but any decent web-programmer only has to look at the brain-dead interface to know that it was written in Perl.

    --

    What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
  55. Re:Mod me off topic but... by harmanjd · · Score: 1

    I thought slashdot was coded in lisp. ?

  56. Re:Mod me off topic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you're thinking of Sendmail.
    Hey, mod me up guys! +5 funny! LOL! ;)

  57. Re:Sorry, but I cannot recommend Perl. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uhh... What does the level of normalization of a DB and the usability of an interface have to do with the language they were written in? You sure make strange associations.

  58. I've already got Perl 6... by CatGrep · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it's called Ruby ;-)

  59. Re:Sorry, but I cannot recommend Perl. by Bromrrrrr · · Score: 1

    Ehr..well as you rightly suspect they have nothing to do with the language really, except that in my bitterness of maintaining too much Perl crap that should never have been written in ANY language, I see it as an attitude found in too many Perl coders.

    I realize this is a gross generalization (I did state so even :-)) and Perl certainly isn't alone in this. The next big victim of poor coding standards is probably PHP.

    The thing however that irks me about Perl is that it makes it entirely too easy to obfuscate your incompetence. Perl really does encourage writing unreadable code.

    --

    What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
  60. Re:Can we use languages not by lunatics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks... that was the first time in ages I actually laughed out loud at a joke at slashdot. There's a teenager ready to laugh at sex jokes in all of us...

  61. Dear Mr President..... by egarland · · Score: 0

    There are too many languages now a days. Please eliminate 3. I am not a crackpot!

    With Perl 5.8.1 we finally get usable threads that efficently communicate and cooperate. There is a fix for the memory leak that existed when using shared queues, arrays and hashes in Perl 5.8.0. This starts a whole new era for Perl programs. My little language is finnally growing up (sniffle.)

    Perl has been a great language for people who just want to "get it done." It get's the job done and usually get's it done fast. It's
    great at making what would be a complicated thing easy. If you want to reference your song data by artist album and track number you just say $song_data{$artist}{$album}[$track_number]. What is happeneing behind the scenes is complicated, that's actually a hash of hashes of arrays possibly pointing at another data structure underneath but conceptually it all optimizes out to simply storing by artist album and track number. Most programmers aren't used to having that option. They don't understand it and when they go to figure it all out they get mired in the way the references are being stored and what is pointing at what and lose sight of the simplicity, efficiency, and power of the whole thing.

    One of the arguments I've heard here a lot is that Perl is "messy", that it's too hard to understand and that any large projects become a pile of unintelligable stuff. I think that's mostly because the people who usually program in perl are young and inexperienced and not a symtom of the language itself. I've seen many truely crappy C implementation in my day. I've also seen very well done Perl code.
    If you use strict; and put things in objects when approprate (it's not hard, really!) you end up with very clean, easy, reusable code. Since the data structures in perl tend to get complicated (since it's often useful and usually easy) you really need to document your data structures. This is one thing that people tend to forget when programming. The code tells you what it's doing. The data structures don't tell you what the data in them means. Document it!

    Perl is growing. Perl 5 has been great at integrating into different environments and with different libraries and you can now tackle a huge variety of tasks using just Perl. It's about to get better too. Perl 6 will be to .net what .net was to Java. It embraces the model and extends it just a little more. Soon you will be able to write in one language and compile to perl byte code (actually parrot byte code) C code, .net programs, Java programs, etc. Perl is beginning to be a meta language. A way to define a way to get the job done that can then be converted and used any place it's needed.

    Oh, and the 3 languages I'd dispatch with?
    1. C#
    2. PHP
    3. LISP
    Most projects written in them should really be done in Perl.

    --
    set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
    1. Re:Dear Mr President..... by egarland · · Score: 1

      I take it back. Perl 5.8.1 doesn't bring a fix for the memory leaks. This program will still make perl blow up:

      use threads;
      use threads::shared;
      my @shared : shared;
      @shared = (1) while (1);

      --
      set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
  62. Gud Speeling by egarland · · Score: 1

    Mental Note: Remember to spell check when I type after 3 AM.

    --
    set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
  63. Re:Can we use languages not by lunatics? by egarland · · Score: 1

    Great post. I epecially liked the Aristotle quote. I'll use that when trying to explain why it's not a bad idea to use Perl to a PHB some time.

    Furthermore, If I were going to teach programming to anyone who was new at it I would absolutely, positively, teach them Perl. It's an awesome starter language and, unlike most good starter languages, it's a awesome full power language that you can build real usable software with.

    --
    set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
  64. ...and in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Perl 5.8.1 was released today...'
    'Really? That language invended by Larry Brick?'
    '...Larry Wall...'
    'Is it still used? It seems archaic since it doesn't scale well and is hard to read. Even it's reputation for getting things done is well ... overated'
    'Yeah...sad but true. It's used on lots of web/internet type things...'
    'Reckon Perl 'programmers' -haha i made a joke- get kicks out of writing obscure code that only they understand cos it means they're smarter than the rest'
    'Well all programmers get a kick like that sometimes....'
    'Maybe they should try Malbolge instead. They'd be tripping afterwards...'

  65. Ug! by Shardis · · Score: 1

    I hate it when I'm overtired and don't cap off a tag and screw up grammatically from editing...

  66. Re:You responded, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *hopes that darwin weeds out idiots like the above sooner rather than later*

  67. Very readable sometimes!!! (semi-ot) by Shardis · · Score: 1

    Heh, reminds me, I actually wrote a quick program in perl once to do a statisical anyalsis on die rolls that proved the difference between odds and cumulative odds.

    Granted, it could've been mucho ugly if I hadn't written it out the way I did with and with much commenting.

    But man was fun to provide a functional program to make a point, and one that anyone off the street could read and comprehend easily. Would actually run through a half million loop iterations to prove the odds check too. ;)

  68. Re:Mod me off topic but... by alien_blueprint · · Score: 1

    [Disclaimer: I do both Perl and Python. Marvelous languages, both. This isn't a swipe at Python]

    By hacking w/ Python, many Perl mongers would be furthering the OSS movement more

    Why is choosing Python furthering OSS more than using Perl? In case you weren't aware, Perl is completely open source, and has one of the largest and most active open source communities in existence.

    On the face of it, this doesn't hold up at all.

    not to mention their own careers...

    This might well be true, but in my experience and judgement it wouldn't at all. On what do you base this claim? I just can't see how you reach this conclusion.

  69. Re: You've missed the point by alien_blueprint · · Score: 1

    And the answer is:

    syntax error at ./lightbulb line 13, near "= ;"
    Execution of ./lightbulb aborted due to compilation errors.

    The odd thing is, this code doesn't even attempt to read the response from STDIN, and then doesn't try to answer the question ... it will just sleep for a bit and then exit. I see what it's intended to do, but I suspect this must be some sort of subtle statement about Perl, or perhaps all the languages mentioned ... but I'm not sure what exactly. Either that or it's just broken ;)

  70. Re:Mod me off topic but... by ultrabot · · Score: 1

    Why is choosing Python furthering OSS more than using Perl?

    Because Python code is much more readable than Perl. Hence, it's more Open, because more people can take a look at the code, learn from it, and hack it.

    [about careers]

    This might well be true, but in my experience and judgement it wouldn't at all.

    With Python, people can do bigger programs faster, One Python program equals ~ 4 Java/C++ programmers in productivity. Perl programmers are not even in the same league, because they can't implement systems of similar scale/complexity. Churning out cute little scripts is not a wise career move in the long run, even if it can be a lifesaver in various situations. Management is more likely to assume that those scripts could have been written by anyone, while with bigger programs one can demonstrate their architectural vision.

    --
    Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
  71. Re:Mod me off topic but... by alien_blueprint · · Score: 1

    Because Python code is much more readable than Perl.Hence, it's more Open, because more people can take a look at the code, learn from it, and hack it.

    The "readability" issue is merely an opinion. I've never found that at all. And now you're talking about "open" in an entirely different context from "OSS".

    With Python, people can do bigger programs faster, One Python program equals ~ 4 Java/C++ programmers in productivity. Perl programmers are not even in the same league, because they can't implement systems of similar scale/complexity

    What? Yes, they can. Why not?

    Churning out cute little scripts is not a wise career move in the long run, even if it can be a lifesaver in various situations. Management is more likely to assume that those scripts could have been written by anyone, while with bigger programs one can demonstrate their architectural vision.

    I don't "churn out little scripts" in Perl. Never have. I've done plenty of large and complex systems in Perl however, and I'm far from the only one.

    I don't want to get into an argument particularly, but if this reasoning is the basis of your statements, then it's clear that they are completely unsupportable.

    Before you leap into a reply you may want to consider if you really know much about Perl at all. From the above statements, it's clear that you don't. Now that's not a bad thing in itself, but it's best not to criticize from a position of ignorance like this just to attempt to rally support for your current favourite language. You won't succeed in convincing anyone, and will actually drive people away with statements such as "furthering the OSS movement more, not to mention their own careers..."

    Why not talk about the object models instead, say? Or something else aside from FUD? That would be a much more productive approach.

    Anyway, good luck with Python. It is a nice language, as I said. I use it a lot.

  72. Lameness by andy@petdance.com · · Score: 1
    This must have been added to *end* the ceaseless wars over whether using "map" in a void context is lame, or not.

    It doesn't change the idea of whether map in a void context is lame, only about its cost. The great thing is now the arguments can't point back to the cost issue, and only deal with the pure idealism of whether map is a good substitute for foreach.

  73. Re:Mod me off topic but... by ultrabot · · Score: 1

    The "readability" issue is merely an opinion.

    Readability of Perl has rarely been considered a matter of opinion.

    And now you're talking about "open" in an entirely different context from "OSS".

    I don't consider a source code very open if it is extremely unreadable, especially in case of willfull obfuscation with tools etc.

    What? Yes, they can. Why not?

    Because perl just doesn't scale to large problems. Even Larry Wall agrees with that, or at least has at some interviews. This is something perl6 is trying to fix.

    Before you leap into a reply you may want to consider if you really know much about Perl at all.

    I know just enough not to like it. I have tried to like it, though; I've read most of the O'Reilly basic Perl (PP, advanced perl programming, LP...) books, so you can hardly say I didn't give it a chance. And then I discovered Python, and realized I had been wasting my time giving Perl a chance.

    You won't succeed in convincing anyone, and will actually drive people away with statements such as "furthering the OSS movement more, not to mention their own careers..."

    I can admin that I could have been more diplomatic, but such a thing rarely occurs when Perl and Python people collide on slashdot; Perl and Python are the Emacs and VI of modern times :-). Additionally, it was saturday night and I had been drinking in preparation for a night at a club, so... :)

    Why not talk about the object models instead, say?

    Perl adapted it's object model from Python's, but somehow, it doesn't feel right or natural. It's probably because it has messed up reference system, while python treats everything naturally as a reference.

    Anyway, good luck with Python. It is a nice language, as I said. I use it a lot.

    Great.

    --
    Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
  74. Re:Mod me off topic but... by alien_blueprint · · Score: 1

    Readability of Perl has rarely been considered a matter of opinion

    Yes, I'm afraid it is. I don't find Python inherently more readable at all.

    I don't consider a source code very open if it is extremely unreadable, especially in case of willfull obfuscation with tools etc

    This is all just your opinion. About reabability, and about what is open and what is not. No one cares about what *you* consider to be open. What you said was absolute rubbish. End of story.

    Because perl just doesn't scale to large problems. Even Larry Wall agrees with that, or at least has at some interviews. This is something perl6 is trying to fix

    So, I'm just imagining all the large problems solved with it, then? As for these "interviews", I think I know what you're referring to, and that's not true at all.

    Perl 6: since you don't know anything about Perl it's best not to dig yourself in any deeper by starting to talk about Perl 6.

    Like I said, you don't know what you're talking about, you were trolling, I gave you a chance to explain yourself, and you have been (gently) corrected, and continuing to try to defend this position justs continues to make you look a bit silly. It really is as simple as that. The best thing to do is grow up a bit, admit you were flatly wrong in the first place, and move on. Really.

    Advocacy: If you speak incorrect BS, do you really expect any Perl programmers to consider Python? Or just roll their eyes and get on with implementing their large scale systems in an OSS language? I really do want more people to try Python, but this is having the exact opposite effect. Think about it. Please!

  75. Re:Mod me off topic but... by ultrabot · · Score: 1

    No one cares about what *you* consider to be open.

    I can hardly speak for anyone else but myself.

    Perl 6: since you don't know anything about Perl it's best not to dig yourself in any deeper by starting to talk about Perl 6.

    As I said, I know quite enough about perl, definitely more than I want to know.

    The best thing to do is grow up a bit, admit you were flatly wrong in the first place, and move on. Really.

    Yeah, whatever.

    --
    Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
  76. Re:Mod me off topic but... by alien_blueprint · · Score: 1

    I can hardly speak for anyone else but myself.

    You used a precisely defined term (OSS) in error. You don't get to "speak for yourself" about how you define it.

    As I said, I know quite enough about perl, definitely more than I want to know

    It's quite obvious you don't know anything at all about it. You can't possible have read "Programming Perl", given some of the laughable nonsense you've spouted here.

    Just stop talking about things you know nothing about. And if you think Perl can't deal with "large scale systems", that would be another subject you probably need to get some experience dealing with.

    Yeah, whatever.

    You might at least want to look up the definition of Open Source Software before talking about it next time ... it's not hard or anything.