Perl allows the user to create multiple programs all with different conceptual systems without the complexity of using different languages.
The problem, as you point out, is there is no way to enforce a single conceptual system within a program, and having the conceptual system change midway is jarring.
Perhaps what perl needs is a way to specify a specific conceptual system/style/language subset for a given file/program.
Corporate users would simply choose a very restrictive, but easy to maintain language subset for large projects, while allowing freer use of the language in quick one-line utility scripts.
Re:C# isn't a language...
on
Head First C#
·
· Score: 2, Funny
-- none of those C# features actually helps you write better programs, and a lot of the so-called improvements in C# just make it a complicated mess.
I couldn't disagree more. Leaving aside your mischaracterisation of LINQ as "embedding SQL directly into the code" all of these features can *hugely* improve the readability of code.
...
I now use Java professionally, but I'm constantly missing the features of C# which consistently allow me to write readable, reliable code.
That's why I like perl. All those features make for more readable code.
The phrase "free market" has been corrupted by doublespeak.
When Adam Smith wrote about the free market, he meant the market should be free. Today's corrupted meaning is that people within the market should be free. The two meanings are contradictory.
Things that exist but are not accessible effectively do not exist.
Let's say a free-file-sharing law system reduces the amount of content created (given the barriers that exist to content creation today, in an effort to create scarcity in order to increase price, this is not a guaranteed conclusion). Let's say content production drops to 1/2, or 1/3, or 1/4 of current levels.
Can you currently afford to experience half of all content produced? A third? A fourth?
Slashdot Mirror
That fails to adjust for inflation. This is the point Ron Paul is making when he talks about fiat currency stealing from savers.
Going from public inflation calculators (such as this one), $1,000,000 after 45 years has about $140,000 worth of purchasing power.
This is the real reason why people are having to work longer.
Customers don't want to pay sales tax, and will shop someplace other than Newegg if Newegg charges sales tax.
Newegg is saying no because other companies said no. If other companies said yes, Newegg would be right there charging sales tax with them.
The flaw in this argument is it assumes the oil companies aren't charging everything they can already.
Perl allows the user to create multiple programs all with different conceptual systems without the complexity of using different languages. The problem, as you point out, is there is no way to enforce a single conceptual system within a program, and having the conceptual system change midway is jarring. Perhaps what perl needs is a way to specify a specific conceptual system/style/language subset for a given file/program. Corporate users would simply choose a very restrictive, but easy to maintain language subset for large projects, while allowing freer use of the language in quick one-line utility scripts.
Mine.
-- none of those C# features actually helps you write better programs, and a lot of the so-called improvements in C# just make it a complicated mess.
I couldn't disagree more. Leaving aside your mischaracterisation of LINQ as "embedding SQL directly into the code" all of these features can *hugely* improve the readability of code.
...
I now use Java professionally, but I'm constantly missing the features of C# which consistently allow me to write readable, reliable code.
That's why I like perl. All those features make for more readable code.
The phrase "free market" has been corrupted by doublespeak. When Adam Smith wrote about the free market, he meant the market should be free. Today's corrupted meaning is that people within the market should be free. The two meanings are contradictory.
Things that exist but are not accessible effectively do not exist.
Let's say a free-file-sharing law system reduces the amount of content created (given the barriers that exist to content creation today, in an effort to create scarcity in order to increase price, this is not a guaranteed conclusion). Let's say content production drops to 1/2, or 1/3, or 1/4 of current levels.
Can you currently afford to experience half of all content produced? A third? A fourth?
Are you really better off in today's world?