Without wanting to brag - I entered that competition 4 times when I was at school and came away with 2 first prizes, 1 third prize, one award from the Irish Computer Society, one from the Irish government, one from the Irish Institute of Physics, not to mention one highly commended.
But enough about me, I would guess that about one in every 5 computer related projects at the competition currently makes use of Linux. I don't see what makes this one so special.
The thing is that the/. community is justified in having a knee-jerk reaction against a software patent because if you follow the arguments against software patents (see www.gnu.org/philosophy), all software patents are bad, not just non-obvious ones.
If you are against software patents generally, but allow "non-obvious" patents, your argument against patents degenerate into debates about opinion, creativity, and what "obvious" means, basically you will fail to convince anyone with a brain that software patents are bad.
You can't go half-hog on this, you are either against software patents or you aren't - I am disappointed that more slashdot readers don't see this.
Where as ISPs in the US are all being swallowed up by media companies, the opposite is happening in the UK. Here there is a new ISP almost every-day. Netscape has one, David Bowie has one, there is even the excellent UKLinux! Of course much of the reason for this is because of the way calls are charged here in the UK, making it much easier for ISPs to extract money from their customers (British Telecom do it for them!). I would be quite worried that the big media companies are moving in on the Internet given that the Internet is probably the biggest threat to people used to "broadcasting" their output to people whether they want it or not (I don't like something on SlashDot, there are 1001 other sites I can visit, or better, I can email Rob and complain - try avoiding Time Warner's output for 24 hours). I hope they are just in it for the money, and not in an attempt to allow them to dominate the Internet in the same way that they dominate the rest of the media.
So what is your point - "Some people like Perl"? No sh1t Sherlock! My point is that they, or those that follow them, would be better off if they coded in something like Python. I haven't relied on anecdotal evidence to make my argument, saying "uh, yeah, Perl is cool because loads of my friends like it" is hardly an argument of worth. I was hoping that you were trying to say more than that, but clearly not!
Hey, sometimes I wish I could silence the people whose opinions I don't like too - but that is censorship, and anyone with a brain knows what is wrong with that.
Ok, when I talk about being locked into a language, I should have been more clear. I am talking about being locked into hiring specialists in a particular language. I certainly wouldn't be happy about hiring someone who only had experience in one language, whatever it was, yet Perl encourages hiring people that are Perl experts. I would much rather hire people with general programming talent, and then use languages which all of my employees would be comfortable with - not just the Perl fans. I think Java and Python are two such languages.
Hey, I agree wholeheartedly that C is capable of some serious obfuscation too, but just because Perl has company in the obfuscation sin-bin doesn't lessen its crimes!
Come on Tom, you like Perl, I like Python - that is no secret, and I have given my reasons for preferring the latter. I don't accuse you of being a Perl bigot, I don't see why you should accuse me of being a Python bigot for the same reason.
There is a big difference between learning a language to hack-up some quick scripts, and maintaining code in that language. I wonder if these multitude of Perl-converts you refer to had to maintain some Perl code, whether they would have been so fond of the language? And before you say that these people wouldn't have been asked to maintain the Perl code because they are not experienced Perl programmers, please note that I have answered this point several times in this thread already - let's not get into an infinite loop!
Believe me, C++ isn't ideal either, neither is C. Java is pretty good (note that most of Java's design consisted of removing functionality from C++!), and Python is the best language I have encountered yet in terms of ease-of-use and transparent syntax.
The mechanism you describe is very self-serving from the perspective of a Perl programmer - "Perl is good because it locks companies in to hiring experienced Perl developers" - you say "locks", I say "traps"! If the same development work was done in Python, then almost any experienced programmer, with three hours with Guido's Python tutorial, could probably maintain the code excellently. I don't want to keep my job because my employer is "locked" into a language I happen to be familiar with, I want to keep it because I am a good programmer!
Actually while I don't think Tom was expressing his views for financial gain, I do agree that attack is definitely his M.O. I recall one incident where he set up a monthly spam to some guy because he didn't like is email formatting, and then killfiled replies to that guys address. Not to mention the time half way though a debate (in which I was being more than civil) he accused me of being a troll and kilfiled me! There should be a guideline against insulting people and then in the same breath informing them that future emails from them will be ignored.
The difference between Unix and Perl is that with unix, it is clear when you see the "fgrep" command, that in order to learn more about it, you must type "man fgrep". What page of "Programming Perl" will explain how to interpret: $@ && ($@ =~ s/\(eval \d+\) $$ (\d+)/0; The problem is that it is much more difficult to find out what a particular syntax means unless you already have a vague idea (ie. ooh, that is a regular expression, go to the regexp chapter) but even then it can be difficult. You don't need to have any idea what "fgrep" does, or "System.out.println" if Java is your language, in order to look it up.
Firstly, Re: Tom's contribution to the Perl literature, I am well aware of that, and his resulting fan-club. He certainly is prolific, both on paper, and on screen. You claim that you can learn as much or as little as you want of Perl, and then happily code using that. My point is, and has been throughout this thread, that Perl is difficult to comprehend for those trying to maintain the code, not those trying to write it. Because Perl offers so much flexibility is it very difficult to understand code based on a knowledge of a subset of the Perl langauge, and because the syntax is so flexible, almost everybody is only aware of a subset of the language! In my view, syntax should be as simple as possible, leaving the complexity to the libraries which can be indexed and consulted with ease. It is much more difficult to index a syntax than a library.
It seems a little naieve to say that your favourite programming language is "organic and natural" and others aren't. It is like and English speaker saying "English is much more natural than German". It is relative to what you are familiar with. The point is that regardless of your point-of-view, Perl's philosophy is one of having maximum flexibility, minimum design constraints. As I have explained elsewhere in this thread, too-much flexibility and redundancy(sp?) make languages too difficult to comprehend for all but experts. Programming is a skill, I agree. But once you have got good at programming in one language, it should be possible to apply those skills to comprehending code written in other languages. Perl's flexibility prevents this, and I think that is a bad thing!
What about from the perspective of a company trying to decide on a language. You have just said that only skilled Perl coders can maintain your Perl code - hardly a ringing endorsement of Perl, or your coding ability. Further, not everyone wants code that can only be maintained by an expert, and there are languages out there that don't need an expert to maintain them (Python, Java, C to a lesser extent). If you like coding in Perl, and those who have to maintain your code are sufficiently skilled then fine, but not every company has these resources.
Ok Tom, you want to play the "please back up your statements with mathematically sound arguments" game. We aren't talking about maths, we are talking about people, and what makes a language difficult to comprehend. Perl is full of very useful features which, if you are aware of them, make some tasks very quick and very easy. As an example, what about using angle brackets to glob files in the condition of a while statement. Now when most people see angle-brackets in a conditional statement, they expect them to be greater than, or less than, this will (and does) lead to confusion, particularly in complex statements. You asked for an example, I have given you one. The problem with a language full of neat little short-cuts like Perl is, is that while you only need know some of the shortcuts to write Perl code, you must know all of them to understand it. I don't think there are many people, even among skilled Perl coders, who could claim to know all of the neat tricks available.
Maybe, but it's possible to write shitty code in any language
Perhaps, but the problem is that even well written Perl code requires a good knowledge of the syntax (which is not easy to remember) and a language-reference close to-hand, to be understood. I think the issue is that Perl affords too much flexibility. Many people wonder how this can be a bad thing, and it isn't if all you do is write code, but if you ever have to read code, flexibility and reduncancy(sp?) quickly become the enemy - and the big difference between Perl and other languages is the level of flexibility and redundancy afforded.
Of course obfuscated programs can be written in any language, but my point is that to anyone trying to learn Perl, all perl code is obfuscated to an extent. Take the difference between the following three Perl statements: $S = "Plumber"; $S = \ $S = Plumber; Now a good Perl programmer could tell you the difference, but give a non-Perl programmer a copy of "Programming Perl" and see how long it takes them to figure it out - quite a while I would expect. In contrast, Python has no such complications - the syntax is much cleaner (even if you only use the primitive metric of the number of %, $, @, and & characters in the average piece of code). To say that all languages are like this is simply not true. I program in C, Java, C++, Python, ML, Prolog, and when I have no choice, Perl. Perl is the only one of these languages where I absolutely could not write a piece of code without a syntax-reference manual to-hand. In fact, I doubt if all but the most experienced Perl coders could write anything non-trivial without looking at a manual.
Larry Wall is a good writer, he is funny, and he holds your attention well. Unfortunately humour doesn't help with language design. This will probably be marked down as flame-bait, but this is my honest opinion - even if it might be unpopular, censor me if you must. Perl sucks. I will admit that if you know Perl well, then yes, you can write powerful programs quickly within particular domains (notibly cgi scripting), some might even enjoy this. However, if you have ever tried to maintain a perl program, particularly someone else's, then believe me, the fun drains right out of the experience. Perl code is a mess of obscure control characters which can change the meaning of the code significantly. More to the point, Perl will generally try to "guess" what you want to do even if you don't quite express it correctly (Tom Christiansen's words, not mine). This may initially sound like a good idea, but it makes finding bugs a nightmare. Perl's design is not just a rebellion against established thinking, it is a rebellion against good software design and it shows. If you are thinking about learning Perl, do you (and anyone who has to maintain your code) a favour, and learn Python instead.
Actually now that Janet is being replaced with the much faster Super-Janet (I don't know how this compares to Internet II in terms of speed, but it is much more widely available than I2) I am beginning to suspect that calling this network "Internet 2" is just a clever piece of marketing. It is just another large-scale fast private network, they are not rare.
Have you actually ever been to the UK? I doubt it, although I really am impressed by your huge collection of penis substitutes *ahem* I mean cars. This *socialist backwater* had developed civilisation before anyone on your island had the wheel. Show some respect.
Slashdot Mirror
But enough about me, I would guess that about one in every 5 computer related projects at the competition currently makes use of Linux. I don't see what makes this one so special.
--
If you are against software patents generally, but allow "non-obvious" patents, your argument against patents degenerate into debates about opinion, creativity, and what "obvious" means, basically you will fail to convince anyone with a brain that software patents are bad.
You can't go half-hog on this, you are either against software patents or you aren't - I am disappointed that more slashdot readers don't see this.
--
I would be quite worried that the big media companies are moving in on the Internet given that the Internet is probably the biggest threat to people used to "broadcasting" their output to people whether they want it or not (I don't like something on SlashDot, there are 1001 other sites I can visit, or better, I can email Rob and complain - try avoiding Time Warner's output for 24 hours).
I hope they are just in it for the money, and not in an attempt to allow them to dominate the Internet in the same way that they dominate the rest of the media.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
And before you say that these people wouldn't have been asked to maintain the Perl code because they are not experienced Perl programmers, please note that I have answered this point several times in this thread already - let's not get into an infinite loop!
--
--
--
--
--
$@ && ($@ =~ s/\(eval \d+\) $$ (\d+)/0;
The problem is that it is much more difficult to find out what a particular syntax means unless you already have a vague idea (ie. ooh, that is a regular expression, go to the regexp chapter) but even then it can be difficult. You don't need to have any idea what "fgrep" does, or "System.out.println" if Java is your language, in order to look it up.
--
You claim that you can learn as much or as little as you want of Perl, and then happily code using that. My point is, and has been throughout this thread, that Perl is difficult to comprehend for those trying to maintain the code, not those trying to write it. Because Perl offers so much flexibility is it very difficult to understand code based on a knowledge of a subset of the Perl langauge, and because the syntax is so flexible, almost everybody is only aware of a subset of the language! In my view, syntax should be as simple as possible, leaving the complexity to the libraries which can be indexed and consulted with ease. It is much more difficult to index a syntax than a library.
--
--
--
Now when most people see angle-brackets in a conditional statement, they expect them to be greater than, or less than, this will (and does) lead to confusion, particularly in complex statements. You asked for an example, I have given you one. The problem with a language full of neat little short-cuts like Perl is, is that while you only need know some of the shortcuts to write Perl code, you must know all of them to understand it. I don't think there are many people, even among skilled Perl coders, who could claim to know all of the neat tricks available.
--
--
$S = "Plumber";
$S = \
$S = Plumber;
Now a good Perl programmer could tell you the difference, but give a non-Perl programmer a copy of "Programming Perl" and see how long it takes them to figure it out - quite a while I would expect. In contrast, Python has no such complications - the syntax is much cleaner (even if you only use the primitive metric of the number of %, $, @, and & characters in the average piece of code).
To say that all languages are like this is simply not true. I program in C, Java, C++, Python, ML, Prolog, and when I have no choice, Perl. Perl is the only one of these languages where I absolutely could not write a piece of code without a syntax-reference manual to-hand. In fact, I doubt if all but the most experienced Perl coders could write anything non-trivial without looking at a manual.
--
--
--
--