Slashdot Mirror


State of the Onion 9

chromatic writes "Perl.com has just published Larry Wall's Ninth Annual State of the Onion address from OSCON 2005. In previous talks, he's used screensavers, music, and Unicode to explore Perl and open source. This year, he introduced the cast of characters in the Perl community in terms of spy movies and metaphors."

174 comments

  1. And every year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm disapointed it has nothing to do with The Onion - the satirical news site.

    1. Re:And every year by Vombatus · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Well, it made me cry

      --
      This sig is intentionally blank
    2. Re:And every year by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because somebody has to talk about the state of theOnion. Other than that great page from the future it's been pretty rote lately. Here I was hoping somebody had noticed and was talking about it's current abysmal state. It use to be the funniest site on the net.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    3. Re:And every year by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 0
      It use to be the funniest site on the net.

      That's ok, we have /. instead.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    4. Re:And every year by zoogies · · Score: 1

      As someone who has never heard of the State of the Onion address before this, I am SEVERELY disappointed. It was, "YES! They have STATE OF THE ONION ADDRESSES? ZOMG AWESOME!" And then. Perl? WTF x_x

    5. Re:And every year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'm disapointed it has nothing to do with The Onion -
      > the satirical news site.

      Here's a link to an article the did a while back. Made
      me laugh...

      'White History Year Resumes'

      http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27933

    6. Re:And every year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Figures that my lame attempt at a 4th post gets modded up to +4 when I post as AC fearing the moderator trolls not getting the joke. But hey, I was serious, I remember being tricked last year too when I saw State of the Onion and immediately thought it was an annual wrapup of jokes at The Onion.

      -Saskboy

    7. Re:And every year by Wontsomebodypleaseth · · Score: 0

      i want my tomato

      --
      If You can read this sig you are on the internet
    8. Re:And every year by millennial · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Did someone get less than the requisite number of hugs as a child? Seriously, what is the motivation for this sort of thing? Does it have to do with John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory? Or does it just entertain you to be a total dick?

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
    9. Re:And every year by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      It use to be the funniest site on the net.

      That's ok, we have /. instead.

      Or fark.
      No, seriously: what I really miss is suck.com . That was the good old days.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    10. Re:And every year by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      Most of their talent has been sucked up by various places (for instance the daily show).

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    11. Re:And every year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it has more to do with the fact that you actually cared enough about him being a fuckwad to waste time responding than it does the limited entertainment derived from actually being a fuckwad.

  2. Maybe perl is a bad joke.... by 0xdeaddead · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    so here comes the punchline!

    1. Re:Maybe perl is a bad joke.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      so here comes the punchline!

      WHACK! Anonymous Coward slaps Oxodeaddead around the head a bit with a large Perl book! There that will teach you to insult Perl you farty pants VB coder!

    2. Re:Maybe perl is a bad joke.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing that's what the doctor's said when you were delivered.

    3. Re:Maybe perl is a bad joke.... by 0xdeaddead · · Score: 1
      oh sure thing kido, just dont let the tidal wave of C books crush you.

      PS I bet vb.net kids get paid 3x more than you.

    4. Re:Maybe perl is a bad joke.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol. Well your highly rated posting history speaks volumes about you.....

  3. Re:Any Relation to the News Site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Any more onion jokes like that and I'll cry....

  4. Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Screensavers, music, and Unicode... and photoshopping himself into James Bond photos.

    Hm.

    Well I guess that explains then what he's been doing instead of fricking finishing Perl 6!!!

    Seriously man I have completed a college education and an entire generation of video game consoles have passed in the time that Perl 6 has been coming "Real Soon Now".

    1. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, he was patiently waiting for you to finish your college education before releasing PERL 6. Took a while, eh?

    2. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      well, it looks like Perl 6 initial release would be in 18 months, IF the language spec was done now and all effort put into Parrot. But since that isn't happening, isn't going to happen, Larry will fart around with language design for at least another year, Parrot will flounder around for another 2 or more, and maybe by 2009 or end of decade we'll have Perl 6. If you haven't gotten disgusted and moved to Python or Ruby by then, that is.

    3. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by chromatic · · Score: 5, Funny
      Well I guess that explains then what he's been doing instead of fricking finishing Perl 6!!!

      The sinister Perl 6 cabal briefly debated unlocking Larry from the chains holding him to his desk for 23 and a half hours every day until the first stable release so he could respond, but this comment has given us a much needed sense of perspective: some random jackass on the Internet has nothing better to do than complain. It's back to the salt mines for Mr. Wall!

    4. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by lullabud · · Score: 5, Informative
      From my understanding of the situation, it's not his position to be finishing Perl 6, it's the communities.
      "Perl 5 was my rewrite of Perl. I want Perl 6 to be the community's rewrite of Perl and of the community."
      --Larry Wall, State of the Onion speech, TPC4
    5. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by M.+Piedlourd · · Score: 1

      Larry Wall, I demand that you stop having fun and get back to writing free software for me at once! Your Fan, M. Piedlourd

    6. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by Lumpy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      who cares. PHP has surpassed perl by leaps and bounds. Perl needs to go backwards. it needs to be cleaned up and tightened down. Perl really needs to become the scripting language for embedded devices. That is where it could really shine.

      Unfortunately it's bloatware now. Perl is a nightmare and large projects based on perl are even scarier.. (look at the web portal metadot... omfg that is a horrible bastardization) you need to take 10 times the number of steps to do something in Perl than what you need to do in php or python.

      Dont get me wrong, I loved perl, it was my first love and still holds a place in my heart. but it has languashed and grew too big for it's britches.

      It really needs Larry to take a good look at it and gut it hard and fast.

      Unfortunately by the time it happens PHP and python will be bloated as perl and ruby will be the new hotness that everyone is turning to because it will have hit the useability/size/performace pivot table point that pushed php and python to the top today.

      I loved perl, I really do not like what happened to it and what direction it is heading in.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by chromatic · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand either PHP or Perl 6. Compare the count of core operators, for example, and consider that despite a few stabs at CLI use and GUI programming, PHP is not a general purpose programming language in any sense that Perl is.

    8. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by Nataku564 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What, you dont like objects?

      Quite frankly, a cleaned up object model is just what perl needs. Well, in addition to some standardized handling of threads, and some other features that most OO languages have.

      Perl isn't Ruby. Perl isn't Python. Perl isn't PHP. Perl is its own animal/vegetable/mineral. It may not be your cup of tea, which is quite obvious, but thats a Good Thing. It means that Perl isn't giving into peer pressure from other programming languages and simply becoming a weak amalgam of language X/Y/Z with a few more dollar signs strewn about.

      I like Perl. It truly makes coding a fun event for me. I am not bound by many of the restrictions of other languages, unless I want to be. It allows me to write a program in a form that more closely resembles the ideas and designs I have in my head than any other language I have tried.

      Go Perl.

    9. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by slavemowgli · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with chromatic: you obviously don't know a thing about Perl. And I'm not just referring to the technical level here; you probably could code a simple program in Perl, but you'd be working against the language instead of *with* the language, because you ultimately don't grok either Perl or its principles or the community behind it.

      Go and play with PHP, kid. :) You think you may have known Perl, but you really never did.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    10. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perl and PHP are -both- steaming piles of inconsistency with Entirely Too Many Ways To Do Everything. Users spend so much time learning to program in bizarro upside-down land that they never leave Perl/PHP to discover any other language. They are too afraid it will hurt as much as learning Perl/PHP. So what either side has to say about the other is ridiculous.

      Both languages are desperately clung to by monolingual scripters who typically write a thousand lines of spaghetti code, or better yet, 5000 lines of html and spaghetti code intertwined. That's the best.

    11. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      but its way too big. it's redicilous how much you need to run those perl scripts. I should be able to fit the default perl install in a 15 meg amount of space. really I should be able to then add in the extras I need. but right now perl take at least 30meg and counting... also most projects using perl have a dependancy hell that makes newer C++ apps look like they are trimmed down.

      I really agree with lumpy. but then I also think that PHP and python are getting too bloated as well. keep the core clean and mean then let people EASILY install the extras (perl needs to be able to have extras seperate like PHP does)

      BTW, I also would kill for a perl interpeter in my phone or pda. right now it wont do that.

    12. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by hobuddy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I want Perl 6 to be the community's rewrite of Perl and of the community.

      And that's the chief reason why it's a directionless (or perhaps I should say omnidirectional) disaster that's not even close to production-ready after all these years. Programming language design by committee does not work.

      --
      Erlang.org: wow
    13. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duke Nuken Forever is being written in Perl6.

    14. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      Monolingual? Only by choice ;-)

      Quick version of resume (skipping languages I don't know enough to use): C, C++, Java, shell, Perl (admittedly, no PHP nor Ruby). Quick version of what I use on a day-to-day basis: Perl. Monolingual? Yes. But that's because I'm 100x more productive in Perl than any other language I've learned thus far. Favourite language? C++. But I use perl to get my job done now rather than later.

    15. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by Hosiah · · Score: 3, Interesting
      in the time that Perl 6 has been coming "Real Soon Now".

      I know replys that begin "you should be thankful, imagine if..." suck, but:

      Be a Python programmer for awhile and see the *other* extreme: a programming language that never stops being a moving target! Wrote a program in Python yesterday? It's outdated, they no longer use that function, you gotta re-code it. Should you do it today? Nahhh, it's nearly five o'clock, better wait for tomorrow's edition of Python so we get a whole day's use out of it.

      Let's make a deal, six months out of the year, we swap Larry for Guido.

    16. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get this attitude. Perl is an incredibly useful language now. Why would it be any less useful in the future? It works just fine as it is, and that's enough. If there is a better version at some point, that's great, but that doesn't affect the current one.

    17. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but I bet you don't say silly things like "PHP has surpassed Perl by leaps and bounds", whatever that means. It certainly does scream monolingual to me. I actually like Perl. But it's a terrible first language.

      There is just a large contingent of people who learned PHP to do some web work, and are now hobbling along trying to do something else with it, or learned Perl and picked up some very bad habits along the way. Like sloppy indentation, no rhyme or reason behind their bracketing, and 10 ways to do the same thing, in the same program!

      And both of them were built as they went, inconsistently, and are very quick to do quick things if you've mastered their enormous number of quirks and oddities. But as a first language they tend to be last languages because new users have to invest so much in learning them.

      Actually, unlike Perl, PHP really doesn't do anything particularly well. Anything it does is better off done elsewhere, preferably with the code far away from the HTML. But that is neither here nor there. There is room enough in the world for the robust, quirky, eccentric Perl. It's likeable. PHP just stinks, with no redeeming personality to speak of.

    18. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by Argon · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Wrote a program in Python yesterday? It's outdated, they no
      > longer use that function, you gotta re-code it. Should you do
      > it today? Nahhh, it's nearly five o'clock, better wait for
      > tomorrow's edition of Python so we get a whole day's use out
      > of it.

      What are you talking about? Can you name any changes that required you re-code your python program? Python major versions have fairly regular and introduce some major features (type unification, generators, decorators etc) but I can't imagine any thing that broke older python programs. Most of my old python 1.5.2 still run without any issues.

    19. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen the state of perl6?

      Community is doing brilliant work - I already use it more than any other language except C++.

    20. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do you actually know Ruby? I know both, I program in both (mostly in Perl, for what-pay-my-bills reasons), and I've hardly ever found anything that I could express easier in Perl than in Ruby.

      If there are things, I'm really curious to hear about them, as that should mean that there's some interesing Perl paradigms I don't know...

      Eivind.

      --
      Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
    21. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by m50d · · Score: 1
      Huh? Python is still on version 2, that's only one incompatible rewrite. Sure, 3 is coming with changes, and they will disrupt things, but they're for the better, and 2 may well still be maintained if you want to stick with that.

      I wrote scripts for python 2.1, which is IIRC a few years old, and have no problems with them today (on 2.4)

      --
      I am trolling
    22. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by kesuki · · Score: 1

      have completed a college education and an entire generation of video game consoles have passed in the time that Perl 6 has been coming "Real Soon Now".

      C'mon Everyone Knows that he's waiting for Duke Nukem Forever to release perl 6!

    23. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by Cyno · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe its easier to type, but this seems awkward to me:


      a = %w( ant bee cat dog elk ) # create an array
      a.each { |animal| puts animal } # iterate over the contents

      5.times { print "*" }
      3.upto(6) {|i| print i }
      ('a'..'e').each {|char| print char }

      ARGF.each { |line| print line if line =~ /Ruby/ }

    24. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by Taladar · · Score: 1

      It works if your marketing department is big enough (see Java).

    25. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, he'd rather babble on and build up his reputation as some kind of "beloved" open-source personality rather than do any real work.

    26. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by eff · · Score: 1

      The "jump" from 1.5.2 to 2.0 (via 1.6) had nothing to do with compatibility; it was pure marketing. If you find that old code doesn't work in a new version, it's usually because you've (accidentally or not) relied on bugs or unspecified behaviour.

      (I still run code that was originally written for Python 1.1, and most of my libraries run under 1.5.2, 1.6, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and the 2.5 development branch, usually without any version checks whatsoever).

    27. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by stuntpope · · Score: 1

      Mod as FUD. Give specific examples.

    28. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      other scripting languages are incorporating all kinds of useful advanced high-level constructs and building high performance bytecode/wordcode virtual machines, while Perl 5.x grows stagnant, that's why the attitude. Perl grows less useful by comparison with the others as time goes on, it's the same situation as COBOL

    29. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by jistanidiot · · Score: 1

      It is clearly time that someone else takes over Perl.

    30. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by Hosiah · · Score: 2, Informative
      I can't imagine any thing that broke older python programs.

      Well, Blender scripts (specifically anything calling the math module) no go on 2.4, go on 2.3. To name *one* example. And what about the string/character-handling functions? Going through the docs, every other one of them has "Do not use, we're getting rid of this one." stamped all over it. Whole language has been that way since I got into it, where have you been?

    31. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by Hosiah · · Score: 1
      OK, examples have been given up-thread.

      For God's sake, it's still my language of choice! It's not like I'm condemning it, I'm just saying it'll be nice when the whole language can sit still for a few months. Here:

      http://docs.python.org/lib/node110.html

      It says "deprecated functions". Now, go scream "FUD" at Guido, yah swab!

    32. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      I agree with you completely. I also know a language which has kept the core clean since its creation decades ago: Scheme.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    33. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > > I want Perl 6 to be the community's rewrite of Perl and of the community.

      > And that's the chief reason why it's a directionless (or perhaps I should say
      > omnidirectional)

      Omnidirectional is closer.

      > disaster that's not even close to production-ready after all these years. Programming
      > language design by committee does not work.

      It takes a long time, granted. But it does work, *eventually*, and we're now basically there. The design has now been *essentially* complete for about half a year, and actual implementation work has at long last been moving -- moving *rapidly*. Since the two most important Apocalypse documents (6 and 12) were (*finally*) published, Perl6 has suddenly gone (in terms of the existence of a usable compiler) from basically 0% done to something like 20% done, and most of that work has been done in the last four months. There are now already (as of a couple of months ago, actually) a very small handful of people (extreme early adopters -- crazy people, IMO, but nevertheless) using Perl6 code *in production*. At the rate things are moving now, there is a non-trivial probability that a Perl6 compiler will beat Vista out the door to release. It is even conceivable that two feature-complete Perl6 compilers will be released before Vista (one written in Haskell, and the other in Perl).

      Yeah, it was a long time coming, and Ruby and Python both have siezed on that opportunity (and PHP tried to, but programmers took one look at it and saw what looked like a markup language and collectively shrugged). So Perl6 will have competition. That's a good thing, IMO; having multiple languages to choose from gives us more options and more possibilities. And Perl6 does indeed borrow some concepts from Ruby -- and some from Smalltalk, and many from Lisp, and some from Scheme, some from Haskell, one or two from Prolog, a little from Python, ... this is why users of other languages are so intimidated by Perl: it's like the Borg of programming languages, actively seeking out other languages and assimilating their technological and cultural distinctiveness. By 5.005, Perl had already taken from C and C++ that was worth taking (at the language level; optimizing compilers are another matter), so since then it's been looking elsewhere.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    34. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 1
      I'm not with you - compared to what? The corresponding perl is
      @a = qw( ant bee cat dog elk );
      foreach my $animal (@a) {
      print "$animal\n";
      }

      for (my $i = 0; $i < 5; $i++) {
      print "*";
      }
      # ... or ...
      foreach (1..5) {
      print "*";
      }

      for (my $i = 3; $i <= 6; $i++) {
      print $i;
      }

      # Using implict variable $_
      foreach ("a".."e") {
      print
      }

      while (my $line = <>) {
      print $line if $line =~ /Perl/;
      }
      # ... or, using implict variables ...
      while (<>) {
      print if /Perl/;
      }
      The last one is definately more convenient in Perl, assuming the filter is only going to be used in this single context, and never refactored out for other use. That's something I fairly seldom need, apart from when I'm doing command line stuff - where I always use Perl rather than Ruby.

      Apart from that, the Perl variants seem more awkward to me, though the Ruby variants seemed slightly odd until I "got" iterators.

      For perl, I'd say scalar(@{$hash->{$subkey}}) definately looks more awkward than Ruby's hash[subkey].length - though the niceness of Ruby mostly shows up in slightly more complex programs.

      Maybe our preference difference comes from what program space we tend to work in? I write very few small filtering apps - either my filtering is part of a larger app, or it's pure command line (where I, as I've repeatedly mentioned, think Perl is better.)

      Eivind.

      --
      Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
    35. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by wayland · · Score: 1
      This is probably too late, but you code Perl like a Ruby programmer :).
      @a = qw( ant bee cat dog elk );
      print @a;
       
      print '*' x 5;
       
      print "a".."e";
       
      print grep {/Perl/} <>;
      The only output difference I can see between my code and your code is that in mine, you might also need to do either of the following at the start to get the exact same results:
      $, = "\n";
      or
      use English;
       
      $OUTPUT_FIELD_SEPARATOR = "\n";
      As for the hash subkey length stuff, I agree; I believe this will be improved in Perl 6 :).
    36. Re:Screensavers, music, and Unicode? by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 1
      I assumed what we were talking about was the code structure?

      That's why I didn't recode as idiomatic Perl, noting that the Ruby code avoided the same idioms. (x is *, print @stuff is print stuff.join, etc).

      Eivind.

      --
      Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
  5. Could it have been any more boring? by xquark · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm serious, where is the talent in discussing OSS these days...

    Arash

    --
    Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
    1. Re:Could it have been any more boring? by Crusader7 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You've obviously never heard Larry Wall do one of these.

    2. Re:Could it have been any more boring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm serious, where is the talent in discussing OSS these days...

      You must be new here! Talent discussion slashdot... erm.....

  6. What I've learned from Pugs. by CyricZ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Pugs is a Perl 6 implementation. It is written in Haskell. I recently fooled around with it. What did I learn? Haskell is powerful. Perhaps even more powerful than Perl. Indeed, as a long time Perl programmer I think that I will soon be abandoning Perl in favor of Haskell. Its functional capabilities are extremely useful when writing software that needs to work (think automated verification and such). And that's just the beginning. If the performance of the compiled code of GHC can be improved somewhat, then we might see Haskell revolutionize programming. It will do what Perl did in the early 1990s: open up a whole new set of development opportunities that just plain did not exist.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:What I've learned from Pugs. by slavemowgli · · Score: 4, Informative

      Functional programming has been around for a long, long time, actually, but it has never revolutionised programming, so I'm not sure why Haskell should do it now - it's been around for almost 20 years already, too.

      Not that functional languages don't have their merits, of course, but I honestly don't see why they should suddenly take over and obsolete other programming paradigms now.

      That being said, have you taken a look at Curry? It's a language that combines functional and logical programming (à la Prolog) - definitely rather cool.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    2. Re:What I've learned from Pugs. by Pinball+Wizard · · Score: 1

      There's another language that combines functional and iterative programming - it's called Perl.

      This book is a good reference on Perl's functional capabilities.

      --

      No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?

    3. Re:What I've learned from Pugs. by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pugs is a Perl 6 implementation. It is written in Haskell. I recently fooled around with it. What did I learn? Haskell is powerful. Perhaps even more powerful than Perl.

      Perl was never about raw power. Perl has always been about providing quick access to stuff you need often: hash tables, regular expressions, plowing through files, and so on. Haskell is a more powerful language on a fundamental level, but not on the day-to-day usability level. They each have their uses.

    4. Re:What I've learned from Pugs. by IpalindromeI · · Score: 1

      I started learning Haskell because of Pugs, as well. I agree with you. Haskell is more interesting and intriguing than Perl to me. I doubt that it will cause a revolution, though. I think one of your other responders hit it on the head: imperative programming is easier to pick up because it's just giving a list of instructions. People who don't have formal training in programming will be much more comfortable with a setup like that then trying to reason about abstract models, even if they are more powerful. Why do you think there are more accountants than abstract mathematicians? Because companies need someone to keep track of their finances, and accountants can do that with less training. Most business apps do not really need the power of Haskell. I write productivity apps for a county government, and I can tell you that almost every one is the same: store data in a database, pull it out for reports, maybe fiddle with it a bit. All that changes is the interface.

      --

      --
      Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
    5. Re:What I've learned from Pugs. by cow-orker · · Score: 1

      Not that functional languages don't have their merits, of course, but I honestly don't see why they should suddenly take over and obsolete other programming paradigms now.

      I think that everybody who has had serious exposure to functional programming gets hooked. Be it in Lisp, Scheme, Haskell, ML, Erlang, it doesn't matter. Users of these languages rarely go back to C, Java or P-something. There's another, more abundant, kind of programmers, too. Those never learn more than two or three languages (most often C, Java, Basic), then argue endlessly how much better Java is compared to everything else (read: C and Basic) and invent stupid arguments along the lines of "If Lisp is so great, why is nobody using it?!". Well, because (nearly) everybody is stupid, that's why!

      True, Haskell has been around since 1987 and hasn't taken over the world since. However, four significant things have happened in the meantime: the "Monadic Revolution" around 1994, which took the embarrassment of I/O out of Haskell; the FFI, formally defined in 2001, which allows really easy interfacing to C code; the Haskell Cabal, which is evolving into something like a cross of apt-get and CPAN; and last but not least Autrijus Tang, who will single-handedly convert every Perl programmer on the planet into a Haskell programmer. Or he might not. Who knows? ...a language that combines functional and logical programming

      There are some crosses of functional and logic programming out there, the canonical example probably being Mercury. On the other hand, one can embed logic programming in Haskell using a small library - no need for a logic programming language anymore!

  7. Re:Any Relation to the News Site? by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 1

    That was SO bad...

  8. From the article by WilliamSChips · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    If I were making an evil language, I wouldn't call it Python.
    I'd call it Perl. Or perhaps Ruby. ;)
    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    1. Re:From the article by mindtriggerz · · Score: 1

      Perl is by far THE most EVIL C-looking languages out there.
      And Ruby looks like VB. I like my semicolons.

    2. Re:From the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      If I were making an evil language, I wouldn't call it Python.
      I'd call it Perl. Or perhaps Ruby. ;)


      What about Rita?!? :)

    3. Re:From the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's powerful as hell, but a bitch to maintain.... That's why I moved to Python.
      Perl still beats the hell out of reading APL a month after you write it though.

    4. Re:From the article by WilliamSChips · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now, now, just because Ruby's block syntax looks like VB's doesn't mean it deserves to be compared to VB...

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    5. Re:From the article by JanneM · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      And Ruby looks like VB. I like my semicolons.

      Which is about as fair as disliking Python for its use of indenting instead of braces. Me, I dislike Python because it has the name of a snake, and I'm phobic :) (only half kidding, actually; I have a real difficulty reading a book when it has a picture of a snake on the cover or when I know a drawing or picture of one could appear whenever I turn a page).

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    6. Re:From the article by pnatural · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Python is named after Monty Python, not a reptile. Fear off!

    7. Re:From the article by poopdeville · · Score: 1, Troll

      Here's an essay about why braces are inferior to tab delimiting. I know some people really dislike them, but the article offers quite a few good points (and laughs!). I thought it was a very interesting read.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    8. Re:From the article by mindtriggerz · · Score: 1

      You are a bad person. Sooooo Wrong...

    9. Re:From the article by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Dude, that was just a pic of a snake in a toilet...
      I'd suggest looking on the c2 wiki for info:
      This should be it

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    10. Re:From the article by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      this(is) { valid(ruby); syntax( ); }

      --
      Why not fork?
    11. Re:From the article by JanneM · · Score: 1

      Python is named after Monty Python, not a reptile. Fear off!

      I know. It doesn't really help since most books use the snake motif. If the O'Reilly books had used woodcuts of John Cleese sitting in a tree, thoughtfully munching on some leaves or something on the covers I'd had been fine.

      I mean, it's not a big thing by itself, but it means I hesitate to pick up a book about the language (and if there is an actual snake on the cover, I literally have trouble picking it up), and the name evokes bad associations I can't help to unconciously partly carry over to my opinion of the language.

      Ah well, Ruby looks nicer anyhow :)

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    12. Re:From the article by JanneM · · Score: 1

      Possibly the single most expected post I could imagine. Everytime the question of phobias crop up in any forum, some immature kid thinks it's funny to try to trick people like this. You _really_ think I'm not careful to click on links in this kind of a situation?

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    13. Re:From the article by pnatural · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, if you're browsing books at BN, don't pick up this one!

      ftp://ftp.ora.com/pub/graphics/book_covers/hi-res/ 0596100329.jpg

    14. Re:From the article by Hosiah · · Score: 1
      use of indenting instead of braces.

      Yah, even though Python is my language of choice currently, the whitespace thing was like the prank the frat plays on you during pledge week. "Whitespace-delimited? You sh*ttin' me? Like a freaking Apple II?" Believe it or not, they did it that way to appease all the people who complained about all the braces and parenthesis in the other languages. Great, so now we're stuck debugging code that uses *invisible* delimiters that we *can't* SEE! Hey, is that three spaces together instead of a tab? What was I thinking?

      Now, I think one solution might be a language that lets you *pick* your *own* delimiter. Whatever format the code is in if you're reading someone else's, when you paste it into your editor, it reads your settings and changes it accordingly. All compilers in the language recognize and code either one. That would be a compromise, but there's probably problems with how that would work in The Real World.

    15. Re:From the article by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Awww, baby want a bottle? I didn't expect you to click on it. It was a joke. Suck it up.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    16. Re:From the article by Builder · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think that the braces issue is a perfectly valid reason for disliking python.

      Suddenly tools that I use in EVERY OTHER LANGUAGE that I develop in become useless. Moving to the first brace in vim and pressing shift-5 takes me to the last one. So I can easily find the beginning and end of nested blocks, subroutines, methods, whatever. This works when I'm writing C, Objective-C, Java or Perl, and a consistent editing environment is one of the things that makes it easy for me to flip between these as the job requires.

      Moving to the indent system would probably be fine if I used it all the time, or even if I used it most of the time, but I don't. So it's a pain to deal with everytime I pick Python up.

    17. Re:From the article by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      That sounds like a good idea, but as you said, there's probably problems with how that would work in the Real World.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  9. You know you're tired when by knightinshiningarmor · · Score: 4, Funny

    you read the summary and get the impression that President Larry Wall just gave the 9th State of the Union address and he loves pearls and onions.

  10. An entire generation of video game consoles. by Anon.Pedant · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wow, an entire generation of video game consoles! What is that, six months?

    1. Re:An entire generation of video game consoles. by sabernet · · Score: 1

      That would be true for PCs. Console life is generally between 4-6 years.

  11. Finally! by erikharrison · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Last couple "State of the Onion" addresses have been pretty bad - understandable, as Larry was getting increasingly ill, and Perl 5 was solidly in the hands of P5P and Perl 6 not yet pushing anything out.

    Just started reading this one, and it is delighting me by not giving me the impression Larry is on his deathbed.

  12. Oh geez... by gbulmash · · Score: 5, Funny
    This is the first "State of the Onion" I've read, and probably the last. Lots of inside jokes and veiled allusions that the casual Perl dabbler just ain't gonna get.

    With how inaccessible and cryptic it was, you'd think he'd written it in [insert name of programming language here]... ba-dump-bump.

    - Greg

    1. Re:Oh geez... by iammaxus · · Score: 1
      With how inaccessible and cryptic it was, you'd think he'd written it in [insert name of programming language here]... ba-dump-bump. (emphasis added)

      Actually, I would expect that language to be Perl.

    2. Re:Oh geez... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      wow.. you picked right up on that joke. We're all proud.

  13. ORIGINALITY by Cantide · · Score: 0, Redundant

    HAHAHAH LOOK I AM MAKING A JOKE ABOUT THEONION.COM ON THE INTERNET

    Lameness filter nothing- Everyone thought about making this joke and it's redundant before anyone even makes it.

    1. Re:ORIGINALITY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone thought about making this joke and it's redundant before anyone even makes it.

      You mean onion jokes have lost their a peel?

  14. Length of a video game console generation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Six years if you're Sony, three years if you're Microsoft.

  15. Re:State of The Onion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy fucking shit. Talk about a lack of sense of humor.

  16. As a longtime and frequent perl programmer... by Famanoran · · Score: 1

    This particular insight into the perl community had me chuckling at my desk.

    I'm not exactly sure where I fit in, or anyone else for that matter, but hey - Wu-Li's word is like gold.

    I've got high hopes for Perl6 - time will tell whether it's been worth the wait... (No, I haven't read the Apocalypses - I'll learn the language when it's released.)

  17. Ridiculous by The+Bungi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm sorry, but a lot of people are waiting for Perl6 and he has photoshopped James Bond, witty dialogue about nuclear weapons and faux videogame graphics. Parrot has been in alpha for what, 5 years now?

    Perl can't continue to subsist solely on its established reputation of being the internet's 'glue'. An entire generation of developers have moved to other languages and frameworks. It looks more like Perl is going to end up as the next COBOL.

    The world is moving on.

    1. Re:Ridiculous by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      This isn't like going from Perl 5.7 to 5.8, there are *large* changes in Perl 6, not something you can do overnight.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    2. Re:Ridiculous by aralin · · Score: 1
      A lot of small time hackers think that if they picked python or ruby for their pet project instead of PERL than all of sudden everybody has done so and the language is going to die. Its simply not true. There are more jobs with PERL as requirement than there were anytime before and the usage of PERL overall is still growing. Its actually quite acceptable language of choice now that the Java hype has passed.

      The fact is that alpha-geeks are moving on to the next new and cool technology or language out there, but the people that actually do software development for living are not moving anywhere. But every now and then some post about PERL comes out and there will be a troll pronouncing the death of PERL moderated as insightful.

      The world is moving on ... to PERL.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    3. Re:Ridiculous by retrosteve · · Score: 1

      I like Perl, but I honestly don't see why anyone's waiting for Perl 6. Anything i want to do with Perl I can do just fine with Perl5 anyway. And a whole new, incompatible perl version doesn't seem like any big advantage to me.

    4. Re:Ridiculous by MadAhab · · Score: 2, Informative
      Actually, backwards compatiblity with Perl 5 is a key design feature. But looking at how Perl6 handles class members, accessors, methods, arguments, overloading, inheritance, etc, etc, it's clear that there's a lot to be excited about. It just makes programming easier and more powerful, without (like Java) swallowing the OO koolaid so uncritically that simple things are made hard because "classes good, operators bad".

      Python is a nice language, but it suffers actively from design features that simply try to be unlike Perl - strip the "line noise" out, force tab indenting and what do you get? Opaque variables, hungarian notation, inconvenient editing, programming in widescreen. Whatever.

      --
      Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
    5. Re:Ridiculous by retrosteve · · Score: 1

      Good comment, Ahab, and I'm glad compatibility is a design feature. But, call me conservative --

      My perl scripts are never object oriented. If I wanted a full-blown class-inheritance system in my scripts, I wouldn't be writing scripts.

      So class members, accessors, methods, etc are completely beyond anything I'd ever use, and completely not exciting to me. If I want to deal with that stuff, I write in Java or C#.

      I may be alone, but I suspect a lot of people use Perl as a quick 'n dirty scripting language to just convert text file formats or process data, and there's really no need for all that extra O-O fanciness IMHO.

      But then I'm old and probably a dinosaur.

  18. But COBOL is still used today. by CyricZ · · Score: 2

    Don't forget that COBOL is still used today. It doesn't have the momentum it once had, of course. Perhaps you're right. The very same thing might happen to Perl. It won't be as widely used as it once was, but it will still be very useful to a lot of people. And it will be maintained, and there will be updates.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:But COBOL is still used today. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      COBOL was used much more heavily than Perl (at one time being nearly 50% of the programming job market) and in much more critical roles (ERP). Frankly the comparison to Perl (which is 90% sysadmin scripts and simple web pages) is poor.

  19. Of course functional programming is ancient. by CyricZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nobody was suggesting that Haskell is the first functional programming language. Of course not! But it has brought pure functional programming to the masses. Haskell's strong typing is a real plus.

    Why is it taking over now? It's because we hit the limits of imperative languages years ago, and we're at the point of hitting the limits of object-oriented programming. That's why we're seeing applications that were traditionally implemented in C (such as a Perl implementation) being implemented using Haskell.

    A language like Haskell allows more complex programs to be developed in less time, with fewer lines of code, and with enhanced stability and maintainability. While Perl was known for such things as well, Haskell offers native code compilation and the benefits of functional programming.

    Indeed, we see that functional programming has had a massive impact on languages like Ruby and Python as of late. That's because the trend is moving towards techniques pioneered by languages like SML, and now made widely usable by Haskell.

    I have looked at Curry, but I am not a fan of logical programming. I much prefer pure functional, or at worst an imperative, OO functional language such as O'Caml.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:Of course functional programming is ancient. by slavemowgli · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh, I didn't mean to imply that you said that Haskell was the first functional language - certainly not. I merely wanted to point out that Haskell isn't new, so if a revolution hasn't happened yet, why should it happen now?

      I've met many people, especially at the university, who believed that functional languages were the holy grail of programming and that they would be taking over the (computer) world Real Soon Now(tm). But it's never happened, and nowadays, I believe that these people are just out of touch with reality.

      Let's face it - the IT industry is just like any other industry, especially in one regard: things usually happen by evolution rather than revolution. Traits of functional programming languages will certainly find their way into the "mainstream" (and the "mainstream" languages), but nobody'll decide to just throw out all existing code all of a sudden and reinvent everything from the ground up in a new language - no matter how good that language is or, more important, how much better it is than the existing languages. Even object-oriented programming is really an extension of the imperative programming paradigm, not a replacement.

      Paradigm shifts do occur, but they occur over time, and it's a smooth transition, not an abrupt one. Statements like "we've hit the limits of imperative languages" may sound cool, but they ultimately don't mean anything - the limits are changing. Boundaries *can* be pushed, and *that* is something that is *especially* true in the computer industry in general and the software industry in particular.

      I won't deny that I'm not a fan of functional programming languages myself, of course. Personally, I think they're rather unnatural; it may be easier to model their semantics mathematically (and the mathematical models will be more "natural", too), but I also think that the step-by-step approach of imperative languages is more natural for the human mind - it's how we do things, and that's probably why imperative languages took off when functional languages didn't (and for the record, both functional and imperative programming language started at the same time, in the mid-50s, and the theoretical foundations, in the form of Turing machines and lambda calculus, also popped up at about the same time).

      Nevertheless, I do realise that functional programming languages have some very interesting and useful features, and I'm certain that these will be incorporated into existing languages (or new languages based on existing ones, in the sense that Java is a new language based on C, for example) eventually - and that's a good thing. Pure functional programming, however, will (IMO!) always remain a specialised niche for certain, mostly mathematical (that is, theoretical) problems that naturally lend themselves to being modelled in functional ways.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    2. Re:Of course functional programming is ancient. by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1
      brought pure functional programming to the masses
      Disagree.
      The masses are about procedural programming, not functional.
      Functional programming, IMHO, has a longer learning curve, and not all brains can do it as quickly, if ever.
      This is more my empirical observation than an elitist assertion.
      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  20. Forced labour is not the open source way. by CyricZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Forcing people to work is not the open source way. If he wants to work on Perl 6, then he'll do so. If he'd rather play around with Photoshop, then he'll do that, too. To suggest that he should be forced into working on his open source project, a project that has been a godsend for hundreds of thousands of programmers over the last decade and a half, is just plain ignorant. That's just not how things work in the open source community. Contributions are valued and appreciated, but nobody is forced to contribute.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:Forced labour is not the open source way. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      If he'd rather play around with Photoshop, then he'll do that, too.

      Not only that, but he stays right away from the standard powerpoint presentation, complete with COTS clip art {shudder} and marketing gloss.

      His style encourages people to think about what they are listening to.

      Good on him.

    2. Re:Forced labour is not the open source way. by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 2, Insightful

      s/has been a godsend for hundreds of thousands of programmers/has fooled hundreds of thousands of programmers into using an inappropriate tool/

      Perl6 is, in my opinion, a mistake. Probably perl5 was also a mistake (I've written many tens of thousands of lines of code in Perl5, and work with it full time, so I have some idea what I'm talking about). Perl4 was decent, for doing what Perl4 was used for - the Perl5 extensions make it *seem like* Perl is usable for more tasks. Actually, it IS usable for more tasks, and even more so than perl4 - just like a screwdriver with something protecting the head is more usable as a hammer than a screwdriver without something protecting the head.

      For the space that Perl5 and especially Perl6 is trying to fit into, Ruby is the best design I know of today - design-wise and convenience-wise it improve on Perl5 in almost every way.

      There's three particular usecases where it doesn't improve:
      - Perl is better for one-liners (command line use).
      - Perl is better if you need some particular obscure library from CPAN
      - The change of the type system to actually have strong typing (instead of automatically converting between text and numbers) can be slightly inconvenient in some text parsing cases.

      Apart from that, I've found Ruby to generally just be better. Half as much to type, more consistent, more powerful.

      Eivind.

      --
      Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
    3. Re:Forced labour is not the open source way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've found Ruby to generally just be better. Half as much to type, more consistent, more powerful.

      And half the speed.

      By the way, does Ruby actually support Unicode yet, or is Matz still engaged in his one-man crusade against decent i18n?

  21. Re:Do people still use perl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this a troll really? Lots of folks *have* picked up Ruby in the time that Perl6 has been in development.
    I still use perl all the time but it's fun to try new (to me) stuff like Ruby or Scheme - playful jabs are not the same as trolling.

    The Chunky Bacon bit? It's a reference to Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby a funny, illustrated introduction to the language.

    Kevin

  22. Perl Had Too Much Security by istartedi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Job security, that is. It was so easy to write "job security applications" in Perl that even PHBs caught on to it. The next web scripting language should be based on a very careful study of how obtuse the syntax can be before the cost of maintaining it will be enough to make IT managers cry "enough is enough!" and throw out the entire application. And yes, although I was not the actual maintenance programmer on a Perl app, I was close enough to those who were to understand what had happened, The nature of Perl is such that it was probably not intentional. I mean, it looked like the code was well organized, but no God help anybody who wanted to change it.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Perl Had Too Much Security by Nataku564 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I maintain a somewhat large Perl framework at my workplace. Designed properly, Perl can be very maintainable. Its particularly awesome for the kinds of hack jobs the financial industry demands.

    2. Re:Perl Had Too Much Security by stesch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't need a special web scripting language to do web programming. That's the mode of thinking that brought us PHP. :-(

    3. Re:Perl Had Too Much Security by MadAhab · · Score: 1
      Yeah, now those programmers have to go back to writing monolithic incomprehensible procedures stuck inside java classes and/or PHP programs loaded with thousands of "echo" statements and no encapsulation of anything, anywhere, ever.

      I have never observed sucky programming to vary its frequency by language.

      --
      Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
  23. Unless... by sootman · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...he can top "Perl6 will give you the big knob," I see no reason to tune in. :-)

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  24. Perl 6 is a mistake. by keesh · · Score: 0, Troll
    I've been using perl pretty much constantly since the Pink Camel, and believe me, Perl 5 is an extremely good language for quick scripting things. That's what it was designed for. Sure, you can do big projects in it, but it's not exactly ideal. Recently I've started using Ruby as well, and I intend to move my department over to it instead of wasting time with Perl 6.

    One of the goals of Perl 6 is to make non-trivial projects possible. That's good. The way it's being done is bad. Perl was once a lightweight, extremely flexible language. Now it's become a huge ugly monster. People wanted OO, so a nasty hack was bolted on top to allow some semblance of it. Now this nasty hack is being expanded. Sure, the code's different, but the basic form is the same. Kludge upon kludge upon kludge; I'd much rather have a nice, clean, pure language (and not one with loads of irritating whitespacethank you very much).

    The same goes for the syntax. All the switching between $, @ and % is really irritating (ask a newbie how to get at the length of the keys array of a hash inside a hash, for example), and the changes proposed for 6 are just making this worse -- it seems that Larry, in his infinite wisdom, wants to prefix every data type with a different hard-to-type character. Perl was only designed for the three data types, and adding more is a mess.

    Perl 6 is a complete rewrite, but it keeps all the mess which has accumulated over the previous versions. This is not good. Sure, my const int $var = 27; may look neat (in the same way that, say, Pascal does), but $var isn't entirely constant, or entirely an integer, it's just a hack which makes it sort of behave like one. It's like Ada all over again! The whole thing is an exercise in pseudo-computer science masturbation with little real purpose except to please the managers who dislike the one thing that makes Perl special.

    On a similar note is regexes. I'm an avid fan of regular expressions simply because a nondeterministic finite automata is far more flexible than linear code. However, Larry must have been smoking that cheap $2 crack when he wrote this. Does he want Perl 6 to be flex or something?

    I won't be going on to use 6. It's a nice idea, but it's completely unnecessary. It won't make large projects any easier to manage (the language is still, at heart, an almighty hack -- an impressive one, but still a hack). It won't make OO any cleaner. It won't make development any faster. I'd prefer to use a language which has always been pure synthesis of science and engineering, not some half-baked imposter.

    Perl 6 will be nice, but I'm guessing it will be the end of Perl. It can't do what it wants to do whilst still being based upon a nasty mess. There are now other options, which provide all of Perl's power and none of the mess. Sorry, but *BSD^H^H^H^H Perl is dying.


    1. Re:Perl 6 is a mistake. by slavemowgli · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's amazing how quickly you can cast off Perl 6 when there's not even an alpha version of the interpreter yet (Pugs doesn't count) and when even the specs are not set in stone yet.

      I think what you're exhibiting here is what I'd like to refer to as an "inverse God complex"
      ("inverse" is not the best word, admittedly, but I can't think of a better one) - you do a thought experiment where you try to do something (improve Perl), find that you can't do so in two minutes, and thus conclude that failure is *inevitable* (hence a God complex: if you can't do it, noone can) and that any *actual* attempt to do so must automatically fail as well.

      Nevermind, of course, that lots of people, most of them much more intelligent than you and me, have worked on this problem for years; you're still able to not only dismiss their current work, but also all the work they have not done yet and conclude that they're not only doomed to fail, but in fact fail so catastrophically that Perl will die - that is already is dying.

      Yes, definitely a God complex. Sorry.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    2. Re:Perl 6 is a mistake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the regex stuff is the coolest part of Perl 6. Unix regexs NEED an overhaul badly, and Perl is probably the only language respected enough to pull it off.

      But yeah, the rest of it is quite frightening and does remind me of Ada at times.

      Hopefully Ruby will have Unicode support and a bytecode compiler soon, that's about all that I need to use it exclusively. And Lisp of course, which is the limiting case for all these languages. :-)

    3. Re:Perl 6 is a mistake. by Bastian · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how quickly you can cast off Perl 6 when there's not even an alpha version of the interpreter yet (Pugs doesn't count) and when even the specs are not set in stone yet.

      You don't need a finished interpreter for a language to be able to see the language definition and know that the syntax is an ungodly mess.

      I loves perl for banging out quick scripts for munging data. I loves perl for being able to do all sorts of crazy crap to text files in a one-liner. But I _will_not_ use perl for anything remotely complicated, because the syntax for doing anything more complicated than blasting some text through a regexp or dumping some data into a one-dimensional array is such an ungodly kludge that I might as well be coding in befunge.

      I don't think it's even possible turn perl5 into a language that's well-adapted to serious application development. You could create a perl-inspired language for those tasks, but it wouldn't be perl, and that doesn't seem to be what perl6 is doing.

    4. Re:Perl 6 is a mistake. by moof1138 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your post seems oddly familiar...

      Perl 6 is a mistake

      Perl 6 is a mistake

      Perl 6 is a mistake

      This is really getting to be a bit tiresome.

      BTW, moderators, please stop modding this troll up over and over every time Perl comes up.

      --

      Hyperbole is the worst thing ever.
    5. Re:Perl 6 is a mistake. by adrianmonk · · Score: 1
      I won't be going on to use 6. It's a nice idea, but it's completely unnecessary. It won't make large projects any easier to manage (the language is still, at heart, an almighty hack -- an impressive one, but still a hack). It won't make OO any cleaner. It won't make development any faster. I'd prefer to use a language [Ruby] which has always been pure synthesis of science and engineering, not some half-baked imposter.

      While I agree that Perl 6 may prove more damaging to the community than helpful (because, if it never achieves critical mass, it'll turn out to be just a big embarrassment), I don't agree that Ruby is a "pure synthesis of science and engineering".

      Ruby seems to be a good language, but honestly I've never gotten motivated to take the time to learn it. The main reason -- and this is going to sound trivial and petty -- is the syntax. Whoever invented Ruby seems to think it was big innovation to dump C-style braces ({ and }) and replace them with keywords like end, and they've gotten rid of the semicolons at the end of statements in favor of making distinctions between different kinds of whitespace (newline versus space or tab).

      Why do I care about that? It's not as if I can't adjust. The problem is, this change seems utterly, totally gratuitous. It's not an innovation. Decades ago, the REXX scripting language was doing things just almost exactly the same way Ruby appears to do it. The fact is, this trivial lexical distinction -- which is cosmetic only and offers no practical advantage at all either way -- has been hashed out for decades and every combination has already been tried. Since Ruby makes such a point of being different, it makes me feel like the authors are out of touch with reality in some way. Either they're ignorant of computer language history and don't know that their "innovation" is not innovative (which means they're not qualified to be inventing languages), or they do know the history, they're bitter that C has won, and they're still trying to fight the C vs. ALGOL syntax war (which means they have a side agenda other than making the language the best it can be). Neither possibility inspires me very much, so I haven't taken the time to dig deeper and see if Ruby really is worth learning.

    6. Re:Perl 6 is a mistake. by BerntB · · Score: 1
      the syntax for doing anything more complicated than blasting some text through a regexp or dumping some data into a one-dimensional array is such an ungodly kludge that I might as well be coding in befunge.
      You can write Perl with mostly C syntax. I did that in Perl for the first few hundred pages, mostly so non-Perl people could read it.

      Then I got seduced by things like adding postfix "if test;" -- it was just too readable.

      There are modules on cpan that helps with the e.g. less than neat OO syntax.

      I agree that Perl easily lends itself to writing unmaintable code, but you can do that in any language. There are advantages and disadvantages with every feature, including flexibility.

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    7. Re:Perl 6 is a mistake. by asciiRider · · Score: 1

      This was great post...the first time I read it...

      http://books.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/26/ 2026242&from=rss

    8. Re:Perl 6 is a mistake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You can write Perl with mostly C syntax."

      The code may look like C code, but there are so many little ways it won't execute like corresponding C code. Details are the killers - bugs are mostly slightly out-of-whack details, aren't they.

    9. Re:Perl 6 is a mistake. by BerntB · · Score: 1
      The code may look like C code, but there are so many little ways it won't execute like corresponding C code.
      By definition a correct statement for most any two languages! ! ("==" for numerical comparisions and "eq" for strings, etc.)

      Not a relevant for my point, of course.

      I wrote that you can write Perl like C, if you want -- it is a matter of discipline. My point was a counter argument to a really stupid claim that Perl is unusable for serious programs.

      The linguistic influences on Perl do make bad programming a little easier for beginners. It is a tradeoff for power.

      The problem with the expressibility isn't IMHO that fools can shoot themselves in the foot a little easier. It is that it makes it harder to learn; more stuff. A bit higher threshold to learn.

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
  25. Larry Wall, along with Donald Knuth... by Eunuch · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...are in fact Christians. Just a fact. May make you want to use what they come up with more. Or maybe less. I just know I often have a choice when it comes to computer languages. And this could be a factor.

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
    1. Re:Larry Wall, along with Donald Knuth... by jandrese · · Score: 1

      I have no idea why that would matter in the least. It's not like they integrate their faith into their language or anything.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:Larry Wall, along with Donald Knuth... by kwoff · · Score: 1
      bless $you; # :)

      I admit to being kind of disappointed when I heard that about Larry. I know I shouldn't've been. I tried rationalizing it at first by assuming that he was probably playing on words as he always does, you know, like I hadn't paid careful enough attention to what exactly he said. Like, "Of course I'm a Christian. Aren't we all? *wink* *wink*" I also generally try to consider that someone may have trouble expressing certain things and that using religious language may be the only, or the most convenient, way they have of communicating these ideas; or that the language they're using is metaphorical. But I don't think anymore that that's the case with him, because what he's said isn't ambiguous or pantheistic. He's specifically said, for example, "And I am personally convinced that Jesus stands at the heart of the story." (See question #7 of this Slashdot interview for context.)

    3. Re:Larry Wall, along with Donald Knuth... by IpalindromeI · · Score: 1

      I admit to being kind of disappointed when I heard that about Larry.

      Is it because you think intelligent people would obviously choose atheism? Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. You just need to look past the dogma that the outspoken zealots are spouting.

      --

      --
      Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
  26. It'll become obsolete even before it comes out by melted · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Check this out: http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=1146 80 and make sure you watch it to the end.

    INSANE stuff. MSFT may have a winner with that one.

  27. Google... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1, Troll

    How is it a troll? I'll tell you how: Slashdot has moved on from Ruby on Rails and is now in prepetual masturbation mode over all things Google. Haven't you noticed?

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:Google... by 0xdeaddead · · Score: 1
      Did you notice that you dared to speak bad about google, and you too got tagged as a troll.

      Im sorry but /. sucks. if you dont jump all over the latest linux fan boi material you are a troll.

      This place sucks.

    2. Re:Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your informative intellectual postings will be missed.... LOL yeah right! Bye !!!

  28. Re:Questions for Larry by slavemowgli · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not Larry Wall, but let me answer that one for you:

    You should not stick to Perl religiously but rather use the best tool for the job you need to get done. TIMTOWTDI, remember? If Python works for you, that's fine; if Python works better for you than Perl, then by all means, do use Python!

    That's not to say that your decision to use Python is automatically right, but it's not automatically wrong, either, and without any knowledge whatsoever about the project you're working on, your personal preferences, your experiences and all that, how do you expect *us* (that is, the Perl community, although I can only speak for myself, of course) to tell you whether Perl or Python is the better tool for your job?

    That's up to you to decide - we don't care what you use, although we may be interested in hearing why you didn't choose Perl.

    --
    quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  29. Re:Questions for Larry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ruby is the next logical step from Perl, not Python. Seriously, Python sucks... it's so verbose you might as well just use C or C++, it'll be faster.

  30. Whitespace by Sweetshark · · Score: 2, Funny

    > (and not one with loads of irritating whitespacethank you very much).
    If thats the only problem with Python (and until you are a bit more explicit, one can pretty much assume so), its gotta be a great language.

    (Oh, BTW you are missing a whitespace there between the words "whitespace" and "thank")

  31. Screw Perl 6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously... I once thought it was going to be something but not any more. The whole design is moronic.

    Hey Larry! Dumbass! Everyone has moved on. Loads of people are using Python (although I don't know why, blech). People who know what they are doing and understand what made Perl so great are using Ruby... and PHP is out there too.

  32. Mmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and Perl 6 is coming out how "real soon now"?...

  33. Wall's cast of characters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet another idea Wall is stealing from Ruby.

    Was seen first in "Why's Poignant Guide to Ruby"
    http://www.poignantguide.net/ruby/

    Chunky Bacon !!!!

  34. pageturning issues by zoogies · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Am I the only one for whom the "next" completely fails at life and the internet? It's not just that, sometimes clicking on the page numbers does it too - sometimes. A firefox thing, or is it their fault?

    1. Re:pageturning issues by sick_soul · · Score: 1

      You are not the only one. I got teleported to page 2 or page 1 on many occasions.
      It is their fault.
      As test, I went again through all pages using next until page 9. Then, I noticed the link to next contains ?page=2 instead of ?page=10, and sends me back.
      Page 11 shows the same problem. Then I go back to page 9, and the link appears correct now (?page=10).
      Either they suffer from a very random bug, or they are just laughing at our efforts to read the damn thing.

    2. Re:pageturning issues by IpalindromeI · · Score: 1

      Use the "Print" link at the top of the article. You get the entire thing on one long page. Much easier to read.

      --

      --
      Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
  35. Troll? by CaptainPinko · · Score: 1

    Can someone check if this is a trool? I believe I have read this post before and the line Does he want Perl 6 to be flex or something? is making me deja vu again. I'm not saying this is a troll... just that it sure seems like it could be a copy-n-paste.

    --
    Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
  36. State of the Onion by McLetter · · Score: 0

    I recently started learning perl and this is the first state of the onion that I've read. I think they went a little overboard with the props and whatnot, they should have focused more on information.

    1. Re:State of the Onion by spauldo · · Score: 1

      You want the exegesis and apocalypse articles for that. They're the ones that go into details about the language (apocalypse more about design and big picture stuff, exegesis more about implementation and how it actually works, IIRC). State of the Onion is more about the perl community.

      Look here for the articles.

      Just bear in mind that perl 6 is a lot different than perl 5 (which is what you're probably learning). The syntax is similar, but object handling will be different, some of the data types are changing (I think), and a few of the operators will change (the biggest example, "." will be replaced by "_").

      Perl 5 development continues, of course, but there's not going to be any major changes to it from here on out, so you won't see many articles about the language itself anymore. Most of what you'll find is cookbook style articles and documentation.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
  37. Damnit Larry... by el-spectre · · Score: 1

    What, exactly, is wrong with "Spectre" ???

    --
    "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
  38. Perl6 photo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  39. Re:Questions for Larry by Hosiah · · Score: 1
    So Perl will be where Python is in, like, 2013?

    Actually, from the manic madcap release cycle, I'd say Python's already where it will be in 2013. They're coding the releases from 2035 about now, in order to stay ahead of the 2036 releases.

  40. Ye-Gads! by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    I was going to joke about how long I've been waiting for Duke Nukem Forever and TeamFortress 2... then I looked at the Perl Release History. My god, I've lost my virginity, been engaged 3 different times, went through highschool, went through college, lived in 6 different houses, had about 15 different cars, had about 20 different jobs, and travelled to another continent in since Perl 5 first appeared. And I thought IE7 was a long time in coming!

    Some fun facts about 1993, the first appearance of Perl 5 (from Wikipedia - 1993):

    In Moscow, George H. W. Bush and Boris Yeltsin sign the second Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).

    Washington State executes Westley Allan Dodd by hanging (the first legal hanging in America since 1965)

    For the first time, Martin Luther King Jr. holiday is officially observed in all 50 American states.

    Bill Clinton succeeds George H. W. Bush as President of the United States of America.

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents raid the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas with a warrant to arrest cult leader David Koresh on federal firearms violations. Four agents and five Davidians die in the raid and a 51-day standoff begins.

    Rodney King testifies at the federal trial of four Los Angeles, California police officers accused of violating King's civil rights when they beat him during an arrest.

    A bug in a program written by Richard Depew sends an article to 200 newsgroups simultaneously. The term spamming is coined by Joel Furr to describe the incident.

    The World Wide Web was born at CERN.

    War on Drugs: Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar is gunned down in Medellín when police tries to arrest him.

    And, of course, Perl 5 alpha first appears.

    --
    I8-D
  41. Haskell by idlake · · Score: 1

    I think Haskell has lots of potential, but it has some usability problems: its syntax is highly unfamiliar and error prone for mainstream programmers, and some concepts are just packaged badly (e.g., monads). Also, it's type system is probably more complex than people can handle.

    A dynamically typed lazy functional programming language might be a better start towards popularizing functional programming.

  42. I don't get it by idlake · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Sorry, I neither get the state of the onion, nor do I get Perl. I'm just writing a lot of Perl code again, and while the coverage of the libraries is stellar, the language itself is a constant source of irritation for me.

  43. FP strikes back by SolitaryMan · · Score: 2, Informative

    I honestly don't see why they should suddenly take over and obsolete other programming

    I'm not sure about "obsolete" thing, but functional programming strikes back -- that is for sure. Why I say that? First, because I've learned from pugs the same thing: Haskell is powerfull. And there are many other guys, so haskell bacame more popular, thanks to Pugs and Autrijus Tang, its leading developer. Second, new programming languages are adopting functional features: map, reduce, lambda in python for instance. There will be many of them in Perl6. Then Sun is developing new programming language Fortress, which is rather functional too. Why haskell? Haskell is pure and with age of parallel and grid computing at hand this is very important feature!

    --
    May Peace Prevail On Earth
  44. Greetings, my friends. We are all interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember, my friends, future events such as these will affect you in the future.

    "Can your heart stand the shock about Perl 6 from Outer Space?"

  45. State of the union... by mikiN · · Score: 1

    ... or was it onion?

    At first read, I was pretty sure the story title referred to G.W.Bush's speech for next year.

    Anyway, here's the summary either way:

    The world is just a great big onion
    & pain & fear are the spices that make you cry ...

    Anyone know how to make a Perl haiku out of that song? One that creates a spy movie plot that's actually less saddening than reality?
    Better still, lets hack a transformation script that takes Larry Wall's article and turns it into a candidate speech for Bush to (try to) recite?
    All the basic ingredients are there. Dangerous mushrooms, references to Evil Contries, Mugshots with stats (just apply s/spy/terrorist/g ). I've got a feeling the resemblance between Larry's article and the final version of Bush's speech will be amazing...

    --
    The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
  46. That position has already been filled by arethuza · · Score: 1

    The next Cobol is Java!

    1. Re:That position has already been filled by Reverend528 · · Score: 1

      Once again, PERL has lost out due to Java's Hype.

  47. oh noes, that hurt! by 0xdeaddead · · Score: 1
    Too bad I dont like perl.

    Sad so sad.

    PS mom wants to know when she can get her basement back.

  48. Am I the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one to think Pixie was kinda cute, then go back to her card and realise she's supposed to be 14? Curse you Larry Wall, curse you!

  49. Re:Questions for Larry by jjn1056 · · Score: 1

    Well, one problem which the "choose the best tool for the job" paradigm is that when you are working at a company that needs to consider supporting your applications after you are gone, sometimes the 'right tool for the job' is to choose from a very small list of platforms that the company is dedicated to supporting.

    When I fist starting working, I had to fight tooth and nail to convince the suits to allow me to use perl at all. Dispite the fact that perl was the best tool for the job at the time, they'd rather me jump through hoops to use the platform they had invested in (Oracle 7 and plsql) then have to support another platform. It's about money and it's about being able to meet your end user support agreements.

    So it not aways easy to say, "Let's use python for this and perl for that."

    Now that I work at a consulting company we have more flexibility, since we typically do one off projects for clients that then support the application themselves afterward. So in that case I can actually choose the platform that seems fastest and easiest to use for the job at hand. If it's a small content management system I will use python with Plone, since I have a lot of developers that have skills in Zope. But often I use Perl for more custom stuff, since that is the language I know best.

    I guess it depends on the company you are in.

    --
    Peace, or Not?
  50. Re:Ruby and Unicode by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

    If you want good i18n, use Python. Ruby will never support Unicode, because Matz is Japanese and the Japanese are on a holy war against Unicode or something.

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  51. State of the mellons by ACORN_USER · · Score: 1

    I'm just hoping that Perl 6 comes with a brand new edition of Learning Perl, complete with Sponsorship from Hooters. Randle Shwartz clearly knows his circular arrays. I'd love to hear his State of the Onions address, complete with gimp'ed role-models.