Perl may be more powerful (I myself wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole) but bash and Perl are both still imperative programming languages.
I prefer Newlisp myself for most tasks as it can natively access system calls including , Java graphics, interface natively with MtSQL and SQLite and also with most other databases via ODBC, and and with C/C++ libraries in addition to modifying itself on the fly as all good interpreters can do. Supports regexprs too. Perl sucks balls in comparison. Its very handy for HTML and XML since they are just S-expressions when you get right down to it. It has built in httpd too.
Get hip and use Newlisp for any server side task imaginable.
A shell can read data and process it with its own built-in commands. Reading in integers and adding them up to a total and outputting the result is a trivial example of this. You can do it in C and you can do it in bash. They are functionally equivalent in this way since they both have arithmetic operators. Shells have built-in comparison operators and can also branch. This makes them imperative programming languages in the same way that C or Fortran or assembly language are.
Your hard and fast distinction about "targets" makes no sense whatsoever.
You use non-standard terminology that makes no sense to me. They "target" the OS with system calls and also access and process foreign data through I/O, and invoke and interface with other programs, and also do their own processing.
We would all be better off with a good knowledge of the history of the Roman empire since we seem to be following down the drain the disasters of its later stages.
I heartily disagree. Continue having fun working 80 hours a week at the keyboard while your boss keeps complaining about how the ill defined project is late.
Slashdot Mirror
You actually prefer XML???????
People have plenty of guns that the government doesn't know about as they were inherited or obtained through private sales.
Well I'm a sailor and as far as I'm concerned it was a chain or continuous line of payments so I don't feel at all wrong in using that spelling.
Go get thee bent.
Perl may be more powerful (I myself wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole) but bash and Perl are both still imperative programming languages.
I prefer Newlisp myself for most tasks as it can natively access system calls including , Java graphics, interface natively with MtSQL and SQLite and also with most other databases via ODBC, and and with C/C++ libraries in addition to modifying itself on the fly as all good interpreters can do. Supports regexprs too. Perl sucks balls in comparison. Its very handy for HTML and XML since they are just S-expressions when you get right down to it. It has built in httpd too.
Get hip and use Newlisp for any server side task imaginable.
A shell can read data and process it with its own built-in commands. Reading in integers and adding them up to a total and outputting the result is a trivial example of this. You can do it in C and you can do it in bash. They are functionally equivalent in this way since they both have arithmetic operators. Shells have built-in comparison operators and can also branch. This makes them imperative programming languages in the same way that C or Fortran or assembly language are.
Your hard and fast distinction about "targets" makes no sense whatsoever.
At least they reference something. See my previous comment about your last two.
You use non-standard terminology that makes no sense to me. They "target" the OS with system calls and also access and process foreign data through I/O, and invoke and interface with other programs, and also do their own processing.
Then why is bash and other shells almost universally referred to as "scripting" languages?
Non sequitur.
I didn't say that I was good, just that I was well payed. There *IS* a difference you know.
Not when those other programmers are cheap ass Hindu H-1B drones.
Since when is "everybody else" trying to implement the ultimate type safe language?
Learn to read.
I said LISP 1 which is an interpreted language (that would be "scripting" to y'all) not CLOS or even CommonLisp.
Hell, I made more than that as a programmer with just a B.A. in Econ.
LISP 1 is the exact opposite of object oriented as it is a thoroughly mutable example of functional programming.
Programming is fun!
No. Years of study in order to implement the ultimate type safe language is absolutely useless.
We would all be better off with a good knowledge of the history of the Roman empire since we seem to be following down the drain the disasters of its later stages.
perl? The poster said computer *science* not unreadable gobbledygook!
want to spend the day on in Cupertino?
Yes but how well does Dark Matter show up on acetate?
The real question should be: can you disprove Dark Matter?
Yes, but have you taken Dark Matter into account?
will be what causes the singularity!
I heartily disagree. Continue having fun working 80 hours a week at the keyboard while your boss keeps complaining about how the ill defined project is late.