You went through a lot the last years, and I daresay, not all of you who supported Bush had a good feeling in their belly all of the time.
To us Europeans, the result is almost as important as for you. Why?
We live in a more or less socialised economy, which means, that we try to spend the prosperity and good luck we received through economic upturn and scientific/industrial progress on as many people as possible. Sure, some say this is redistribution of wealth, and this tastes like communism. Let me tell you, it is _not_.
We do follow the principles of economy and free market as you do, but we try to make sure that economic success, which we are all working on, is shared even in hard times for the individual. This leads to more happy faces in the streets, more money in the economy (since the "poor" can spend money too, and don't drop out as a workforce) and altogether a better feeling. Less poverty, almost no slums (we actually don't use this word for places in our own countries, because we have nothing alike) and social stability are the result.
Well, but we can not barricade ourself in europe, no economy can. We need to exchange goods and money with the rest of the world, we need to take part in a worldwide economy.
As you do, dear americans. But what if you went on with this (neocon) way (AND had lasting success with it, which you clearly didn't...) - we would have had to compete with that, sooner or later. I don't doubt that it would've been a requirement due to a inferior economy (seriously, we have a great economy, and so did you), but I think, sooner or later the model of thinking would have spilled over to us, and we would have had to abide.
So, what's going to happen now?
You will learn (those of you who don't already believe in it) that state-funded social security and healthcare makes those things cheaper and better for everyone.
You will learn, that social stability is more worth than 2% more income.
You will learn, that less poverty and hopelessness yields less crime.
You will learn, that working together yields more profit for all - instead of the GET OF MY LAWN attitude, which will eventually leads to hardship and anger for a significant part of society.
As one quite rich Austrian (Peter Haselsteiner, CEO of one of the biggest construction companies here) said prior to an election in Austria
"I shall be grateful for being able to go on a drink with my Porsche and coming back to my car which isn't vandalised. I shall understand that social stability is worth more than money." (he too was in favour of raising taxes for the rich)
Social stability is a good that provides better quality of life for everyone, not just for those who receive welfare.
and it certainly shows that not all public/social healthcare systems are better than the healthcare in the us. but it shows that most are, at least of those countries with comparable economy,
I live in Austria, as I lined out in other posts I wrote in this topic. I've been living in a *very* remote rural area, on the border to hungary and slovenia, where economy is slow and infrastructure is bad. But the next hospital is 15minutes away, and the doctor is there 4 days of the week and does house calls in case of emergency.
Oops. What i meant is this: the hospital, 15 minutes away is open 24/7. The doctor in my village (1000 inhabitants) is there 4 days a week.
But do you really think you can overgeneralize it?
living in a rural area has its drawbacks in infrastructure, everywhere in the world.
Don't blame it on the concept of public healthcare - blame it on your current implementation, which you apparently really need to fix. And thats what elections are for;)
I live in Austria, as I lined out in other posts I wrote in this topic. I've been living in a *very* remote rural area, on the border to hungary and slovenia, where economy is slow and infrastructure is bad. But the next hospital is 15minutes away, and the doctor is there 4 days of the week and does house calls in case of emergency. Also, the wait times you describe, would never ever have appeared here.
We have public health care, so the concept itself simply can not be the problem.
what i saw that you guys pay for a good insurance (with services comparable to our social healthcare) you would more probably cut the costs by 3/4th and still have the same quality.
i've been to the orthopedic last week, a renowned specialist and chiropractic who mostly has private patients. I got an appointment within three days, i waited for 30 minutes (same as the private patients in a very very nice waiting room (same as private patients), getting coffee served (same as private patients) and got my back fixed in less than five minutes.
Ok, I wish i could have talked to the doctor a little longer as of why my back is suddenly ok again. But then I would have needed to be a private patient...
Ah, and I'm a student now, I pay 23 EUR/month for my social health insurance. When I was working I paid the top-income-rate. And my healthcare was just as fine, and NEVER would the idea have crossed my mind to let someone else get no/worse healthcare just because he or she earns less.
Not at 320EUR/month, anyway. (Though I can understand that since your healthcare is all private and for-profit, you won't be getting near that kind of insurance premium any time soon - of course, paying high rates leads to jealousy of those who only pay little. But in social healthcare, good healthcare is cheap for *everyone*. We also have a lot of politicians and public persons who announced that even they don't have a private insurance additional to the public one...)
this is absolute nonsense. public health care per se did never kill anyone, bad doctors / wrong judgements do.
implement it right, and you have nothing to fear. plus, your rates will drop to >400USD/monthly. nobody gets screwed by the big insurances anymore, everyone is happy.
Ok, thats the last time I'll reply to myself, I promise.
But the point I was trying to make is, I read a lot of posts here from americans, who say they have rates over 500 USD / month without dental and with cost-sharing. So, who is "stealing" (as someone mentioned in another post) from the patients?
The social-healthcare system or the capitalist version?
FYI: The highest income group in Austria pays ~320 EUR tops per month. Dental is included, though not the fancy stuff like replacement teeth or plastic fillings.
And it really is top notch medicine you receive. If you don't believe that, just come visit;)
Yes, there is the misconception, right there, thank you.
Private company = interested in money = interested in people not getting well (enough) State = interested in working people = interested in people getting well
The losers will be the (in my opinion criminal) private healthcare institutions which hadn't had a viable business plan without protection by the government.
And thats the perverted part of it. You guys actually DEMAND that the state protects insurances. How wrong can you be? How cynical?
This is so dead wrong. Nobody in a social health care system "steals" from anyone.
Everyone pays. But since everyone needs to pay, there is more money which can be used effectively.
So, instead of giving just one guy his own room at the hospital (which clearly isn't essential for recovery), he can share it with another one (perhaps with a lower income, but still paying insurance), thus giving him a chance to be a healthy and productive part of the economy again.
The problem is, i think, a psychological one. Or two.
Redistribution of wealth means socialism means no economy means poverty.
or:
Social healthcare means no money for medicine means bad medicine means death.
The truth is, we have excellent healthcare, at least in austria and germany (that's where i've been to a hospital), AND we have a free market with rich people. Just not as many poor as the.us.
Typically, we don't have slums, but we also don't have people earning billions a year. Go figure what's better.
In my opinion, healthcare does not belong to the "electable" rights you get as a human.
There is no liberty in playing with your _life_, just to have an economic advantage over your competitor.
I live in Austria, a small european country not featured by Michael Moores Sicko. For us, healthcare isn't "free" as such - of course it isn't, it never is. But let me explain. (I will use national healthcare instead of social service/socialist healthcare/...)
There are mainly four big groups which have access to healthcare:
* Employees and Workers. They *must* be insured by their employer, who immediately cuts taxes + social insurance from your paycheck. The latter goes into the state pension fund and the state health insurance. It is a criminal offense for an executive at a company to (silently or openly) not insure her employees.
* Freelancers. They *must* be insured too, though they have to do it on their own. There are fines to pay if you don't.
* Students, children. They are, up to an age of 27, automatically insured with their parents. If ones studies take longer (or begin later), a student can (but does not need to) insure herself for 23EUR / month as long as she earns less than 8000EUR / year, 46EUR / month if she earns more.
* Unemployed people. They get their health insurance automatically with their unemployment money.
> So, you say, you don't have a choice?
Well, you do! You can insure yourself privately, which will certainly give you some benefits over the national healthcare. Think along the lines of your own room (instead of 1-3 other inmates) at the hospital, perhaps the possibility of going to a private rehabilitation facility, money if you don't spend your hospital stay in the first class rooms, shorter waiting periods/faster appointments for non-emergency treatments, stuff like that. You do NOT necessarily get better treatment, though you can choose the surgeon who operates on you. But more about choice in the national healthcare later.
> So, you say, by being insured with the national healthcare, I need to wait?
Not in emergency cases. Not when something is deteriorating. If you need your appendix removed, no wait at all. If you want to have a joint replaced by an artificial joint, you might need to do another three weeks with painkillers.
> So, you say, I can not choose my doctor?
Well, you can! We have a small, credit card sized chipcard, with the social security number on it and a cryptographically elegant authorization system. With this card, you can walk into any doctors office or hospital and get treatment. You can, of course, choose the hospital or doctor you want to go to. You can even walk right into a specialists office and get treatment.
This model is restricted to making that choice every three months. This is done due to billing reasons with national healthcare (the doctor bills them every three months for all treatment in that time). This is NOT done to prevent anyone going to see a second doctor. In fact, the overwhelming lot of the doctors will treat you even if you are registered with another doctor of that specialty for the current three month period, stating to the health service that it was an emergency, or the "other" doctor wrote a prescription for getting a second opinion (which every good doctor will do if you ask)
There is another caveat with that: Not every single doctor coming from med school gets a contract with the national healthcare. Those who don't operate privately. But those are very, very few. The overwhelming lot of doctors who practice privately do that in addition to their job in a hospital where you can go to. So this is actually a service for people who are insured privately and want to have some sort of special treatment, like fresh flowers in the waiting room, more time to talk to the doctor and such.
> So, you say, doctors need to work privately if they want to earn bigtime?
No. No. NO. N O doctor refuses a contract with the national
And another thing: with this settlement, google actively further enabled the "sitting duck" practice of the content mafia, waiting for someone to be "in it" waist deep until they can sue - in opposition to create clear terms for everybody.
i'm tempted to say "experience" but i should rather rephrase that part.
you can't learn it "on the job" without a considerable (uneconomical) amount of time.
I'll put it another way: if you are looking for a new employee, what would you rather overlook: the missing factual knowledge or the missing ability to obtain factual knowledge by yourself?
Skill assessment is done in almost all kinds of professional employment situations . yet it depends mostly on the hiring policy of the department of that particular firm if there will be an assessment.
And quite franky, I think there is a good reason why this is done with IT jobs more often: analytic and associative thinking and problem solving are not skills you can learn.
Plus, IT jobbers tend to be more annoyed by moron colleagues than non-IT employees.
And lets not forget that there is a huge amount of moronness out there - I myself did Job interviews with certified whatevers, who applied for a sysadmin position and couldn't tell me what information a notation like "192.168.38.1/24" provides. And thats just the very basic for such a job, but it already weeded out two thirds of the applicants, *completely unrelated* to their educational history or other certified qualifications.
And last but not least, it always depends on the quality of the respective management if such an evaluation is done: and speaking for me and my experience, a company should do it in *all* sorts of positions, no matter how professional, experienced and well educated an applicant is.
for chaps who are willing to do a little security duty.
Their job would be to control the entry at the signon and the exit while the party. They should write down serial numbers and names (ids) of all equipmen brought to the party which is bigger than what fits in a pocket, i.e. desktops, laptops, switches, tfts etc.
Make it clear that anything smaller is to be carried with the owner and that there is no guarantee that the aforementioned security measure is sufficient or can even prevent theft.
And of course, provide holes in desks where people can fixate their kensington locks.
This is plenty for opportunity thieves, you can't do anything against organized actions which wouldnt make regular people uncomfortable anyway (like cameras, too much security standing around, police, body searches, etc)
First, and foremost, perl encourages via its programming culture (does the acronym TIMTOWDI strike terror in your head?) and through its design obscure programming. Thus, the risk of resulting unmaintainable code is very high.
Second, perl is technically a hybrid of different programming paradigms. This does not only add to the complexity and the before mentioned risky "TIMTOWDI" behaviour, but it more often than not gives perl coders who need/want to work in an existing perl environment a huge headache. The colleagues do it differently, they have been, for years.
Third, perl is highly deficient in what i would call "semantic integrity". It is like speaking a language with an unusual high percentage of phrases, lexical and grammatic exceptions.
Fourth, perl has a huge history. A history so large and moved that it carries a lot of weight of past programming paradigms, do's and dont's, hacks and "boobytraps". No business decision can be based upon that.
Fifth, perl is slower, bigger and consumes more memory, and does not offer bytecode by default. This, again, is not the fault of the perl maintainers, but the of the dead freight perl is still carrying for compatibility purposes and the lack of "one" way to do things.
Sixth, perl has a weird typing concept, which encourages misuse. (Hey, no other scripting language i know uses a library-include to render typing useable...)
Seventh, and this is nourished by my own experience, there is the phenomenon that you get much better (in terms of maintainability) perl code if you hire programmers who do not primarily program perl. This is weird, but my observation suggested, that this is because they don't tend to give in to certain sugar perl offers and use paradigms like OO more straight forward. The perl-enthusiasts I met as job applicants, who were altogether very capable programmers, were kind of proud of their obfuscated perl code. So proud that a lot of them even put it in their application (which was of course rejected prematurely).
Perl has done great, and I mean really GREAT things for the internet, for script language evolution and for businesses.
Nah. He is like "I don't have a policy on immigration, so give me money for my policy on technology." - but indeed, he HAD and very probably still has a policy on immigrantion. But where can I read about it?
After all, the whole guy goes into office, not just the part of him with the cool technology policy and the comic.
Slashdot Mirror
I need say: You guys earned it.
You went through a lot the last years, and I daresay, not all of you who supported Bush had a good feeling in their belly all of the time.
To us Europeans, the result is almost as important as for you. Why?
We live in a more or less socialised economy, which means, that we try to spend the prosperity and good luck we received through economic upturn and scientific/industrial progress on as many people as possible. Sure, some say this is redistribution of wealth, and this tastes like communism. Let me tell you, it is _not_.
We do follow the principles of economy and free market as you do, but we try to make sure that economic success, which we are all working on, is shared even in hard times for the individual. This leads to more happy faces in the streets, more money in the economy (since the "poor" can spend money too, and don't drop out as a workforce) and altogether a better feeling. Less poverty, almost no slums (we actually don't use this word for places in our own countries, because we have nothing alike) and social stability are the result.
Well, but we can not barricade ourself in europe, no economy can. We need to exchange goods and money with the rest of the world, we need to take part in a worldwide economy.
As you do, dear americans. But what if you went on with this (neocon) way (AND had lasting success with it, which you clearly didn't ...) - we would have had to compete with that, sooner or later. I don't doubt that it would've been a requirement due to a inferior economy (seriously, we have a great economy, and so did you), but I think, sooner or later the model of thinking would have spilled over to us, and we would have had to abide.
So, what's going to happen now?
You will learn (those of you who don't already believe in it) that state-funded social security and healthcare makes those things cheaper and better for everyone.
You will learn, that social stability is more worth than 2% more income.
You will learn, that less poverty and hopelessness yields less crime.
You will learn, that working together yields more profit for all - instead of the GET OF MY LAWN attitude, which will eventually leads to hardship and anger for a significant part of society.
As one quite rich Austrian (Peter Haselsteiner, CEO of one of the biggest construction companies here) said prior to an election in Austria
"I shall be grateful for being able to go on a drink with my Porsche and coming back to my car which isn't vandalised. I shall understand that social stability is worth more than money." (he too was in favour of raising taxes for the rich)
Social stability is a good that provides better quality of life for everyone, not just for those who receive welfare.
Socialized Healthcare is better, and the data on that is where? And is the data objective meaning, 3rd party data, not provided by "the system"
here it is: http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/index.html
and it certainly shows that not all public/social healthcare systems are better than the healthcare in the us. but it shows that most are, at least of those countries with comparable economy,
this what you describe is not (necessarily) the case in social healthcare.
I live in Austria, as I lined out in other posts I wrote in this topic. I've been living in a *very* remote rural area, on the border to hungary and slovenia, where economy is slow and infrastructure is bad. But the next hospital is 15minutes away, and the doctor is there 4 days of the week and does house calls in case of emergency.
Oops. What i meant is this: the hospital, 15 minutes away is open 24/7. The doctor in my village (1000 inhabitants) is there 4 days a week.
Sorry man that you had those experiences.
But do you really think you can overgeneralize it?
living in a rural area has its drawbacks in infrastructure, everywhere in the world.
Don't blame it on the concept of public healthcare - blame it on your current implementation, which you apparently really need to fix. And thats what elections are for ;)
I live in Austria, as I lined out in other posts I wrote in this topic. I've been living in a *very* remote rural area, on the border to hungary and slovenia, where economy is slow and infrastructure is bad. But the next hospital is 15minutes away, and the doctor is there 4 days of the week and does house calls in case of emergency. Also, the wait times you describe, would never ever have appeared here.
We have public health care, so the concept itself simply can not be the problem.
what i saw that you guys pay for a good insurance (with services comparable to our social healthcare) you would more probably cut the costs by 3/4th and still have the same quality.
this is *absolutely* not true.
stop spreading lies.
i live in a public health care system.
i've been to the orthopedic last week, a renowned specialist and chiropractic who mostly has private patients. I got an appointment within three days, i waited for 30 minutes (same as the private patients in a very very nice waiting room (same as private patients), getting coffee served (same as private patients) and got my back fixed in less than five minutes.
Ok, I wish i could have talked to the doctor a little longer as of why my back is suddenly ok again. But then I would have needed to be a private patient ...
Ah, and I'm a student now, I pay 23 EUR/month for my social health insurance. When I was working I paid the top-income-rate. And my healthcare was just as fine, and NEVER would the idea have crossed my mind to let someone else get no/worse healthcare just because he or she earns less.
Not at 320EUR/month, anyway. (Though I can understand that since your healthcare is all private and for-profit, you won't be getting near that kind of insurance premium any time soon - of course, paying high rates leads to jealousy of those who only pay little. But in social healthcare, good healthcare is cheap for *everyone*. We also have a lot of politicians and public persons who announced that even they don't have a private insurance additional to the public one ...)
this is absolute nonsense. public health care per se did never kill anyone, bad doctors / wrong judgements do.
implement it right, and you have nothing to fear. plus, your rates will drop to >400USD/monthly. nobody gets screwed by the big insurances anymore, everyone is happy.
Ok, thats the last time I'll reply to myself, I promise.
But the point I was trying to make is, I read a lot of posts here from americans, who say they have rates over 500 USD / month without dental and with cost-sharing. So, who is "stealing" (as someone mentioned in another post) from the patients?
The social-healthcare system or the capitalist version?
FYI: The highest income group in Austria pays ~320 EUR tops per month. Dental is included, though not the fancy stuff like replacement teeth or plastic fillings.
And it really is top notch medicine you receive. If you don't believe that, just come visit ;)
Yes, there is the misconception, right there, thank you.
Private company = interested in money = interested in people not getting well (enough)
State = interested in working people = interested in people getting well
The losers will be the (in my opinion criminal) private healthcare institutions which hadn't had a viable business plan without protection by the government.
And thats the perverted part of it. You guys actually DEMAND that the state protects insurances. How wrong can you be? How cynical?
This is so dead wrong. Nobody in a social health care system "steals" from anyone.
Everyone pays. But since everyone needs to pay, there is more money which can be used effectively.
So, instead of giving just one guy his own room at the hospital (which clearly isn't essential for recovery), he can share it with another one (perhaps with a lower income, but still paying insurance), thus giving him a chance to be a healthy and productive part of the economy again.
No, you are absolutely right.
The problem is, i think, a psychological one. Or two.
Redistribution of wealth means socialism means no economy means poverty.
or:
Social healthcare means no money for medicine means bad medicine means death.
The truth is, we have excellent healthcare, at least in austria and germany (that's where i've been to a hospital), AND we have a free market with rich people. Just not as many poor as the .us.
Typically, we don't have slums, but we also don't have people earning billions a year. Go figure what's better.
In my opinion, healthcare does not belong to the "electable" rights you get as a human.
There is no liberty in playing with your _life_, just to have an economic advantage over your competitor.
I live in Austria, a small european country not featured by Michael Moores Sicko. For us, healthcare isn't "free" as such - of course it isn't, it never is. But let me explain. (I will use national healthcare instead of social service/socialist healthcare/ ...)
There are mainly four big groups which have access to healthcare:
* Employees and Workers. They *must* be insured by their employer, who immediately cuts taxes + social insurance from your paycheck. The latter goes into the state pension fund and the state health insurance. It is a criminal offense for an executive at a company to (silently or openly) not insure her employees.
* Freelancers. They *must* be insured too, though they have to do it on their own. There are fines to pay if you don't.
* Students, children. They are, up to an age of 27, automatically insured with their parents. If ones studies take longer (or begin later), a student can (but does not need to) insure herself for 23EUR / month as long as she earns less than 8000EUR / year, 46EUR / month if she earns more.
* Unemployed people. They get their health insurance automatically with their unemployment money.
> So, you say, you don't have a choice?
Well, you do! You can insure yourself privately, which will certainly give you some benefits over the national healthcare. Think along the lines of your own room (instead of 1-3 other inmates) at the hospital, perhaps the possibility of going to a private rehabilitation facility, money if you don't spend your hospital stay in the first class rooms, shorter waiting periods/faster appointments for non-emergency treatments, stuff like that. You do NOT necessarily get better treatment, though you can choose the surgeon who operates on you. But more about choice in the national healthcare later.
> So, you say, by being insured with the national healthcare, I need to wait?
Not in emergency cases. Not when something is deteriorating. If you need your appendix removed, no wait at all. If you want to have a joint replaced by an artificial joint, you might need to do another three weeks with painkillers.
> So, you say, I can not choose my doctor?
Well, you can! We have a small, credit card sized chipcard, with the social security number on it and a cryptographically elegant authorization system. With this card, you can walk into any doctors office or hospital and get treatment. You can, of course, choose the hospital or doctor you want to go to. You can even walk right into a specialists office and get treatment.
This model is restricted to making that choice every three months. This is done due to billing reasons with national healthcare (the doctor bills them every three months for all treatment in that time). This is NOT done to prevent anyone going to see a second doctor. In fact, the overwhelming lot of the doctors will treat you even if you are registered with another doctor of that specialty for the current three month period, stating to the health service that it was an emergency, or the "other" doctor wrote a prescription for getting a second opinion (which every good doctor will do if you ask)
There is another caveat with that: Not every single doctor coming from med school gets a contract with the national healthcare. Those who don't operate privately. But those are very, very few. The overwhelming lot of doctors who practice privately do that in addition to their job in a hospital where you can go to. So this is actually a service for people who are insured privately and want to have some sort of special treatment, like fresh flowers in the waiting room, more time to talk to the doctor and such.
> So, you say, doctors need to work privately if they want to earn bigtime?
No. No. NO. N O doctor refuses a contract with the national
And another thing: with this settlement, google actively further enabled the "sitting duck" practice of the content mafia, waiting for someone to be "in it" waist deep until they can sue - in opposition to create clear terms for everybody.
to be a "groundbreaking new licensing system"?
They got sued, they have to pay, google cut the best deal in including the right for the material.
But with this kind of beaviour they (authors guild/IP mafia) have yet again failed to provide or support a viable business model. Well done.
Anyone else?
I wonder what the problem could be, LD_PRELOAD also doesn't help ...
Does anyone have it working on a 64bit hardy?
i'm tempted to say "experience" but i should rather rephrase that part.
you can't learn it "on the job" without a considerable (uneconomical) amount of time.
I'll put it another way: if you are looking for a new employee, what would you rather overlook: the missing factual knowledge or the missing ability to obtain factual knowledge by yourself?
thus the whole question is futile.
Skill assessment is done in almost all kinds of professional employment situations . yet it depends mostly on the hiring policy of the department of that particular firm if there will be an assessment.
And quite franky, I think there is a good reason why this is done with IT jobs more often: analytic and associative thinking and problem solving are not skills you can learn.
Plus, IT jobbers tend to be more annoyed by moron colleagues than non-IT employees.
And lets not forget that there is a huge amount of moronness out there - I myself did Job interviews with certified whatevers, who applied for a sysadmin position and couldn't tell me what information a notation like "192.168.38.1/24" provides. And thats just the very basic for such a job, but it already weeded out two thirds of the applicants, *completely unrelated* to their educational history or other certified qualifications.
And last but not least, it always depends on the quality of the respective management if such an evaluation is done: and speaking for me and my experience, a company should do it in *all* sorts of positions, no matter how professional, experienced and well educated an applicant is.
for chaps who are willing to do a little security duty.
Their job would be to control the entry at the signon and the exit while the party. They should write down serial numbers and names (ids) of all equipmen brought to the party which is bigger than what fits in a pocket, i.e. desktops, laptops, switches, tfts etc.
Make it clear that anything smaller is to be carried with the owner and that there is no guarantee that the aforementioned security measure is sufficient or can even prevent theft.
And of course, provide holes in desks where people can fixate their kensington locks.
This is plenty for opportunity thieves, you can't do anything against organized actions which wouldnt make regular people uncomfortable anyway (like cameras, too much security standing around, police, body searches, etc)
i wouldn't have written my post if i read yours first... it is more diplomatic too ;)
seconded.
(or rather: should be)
Let me explain:
First, and foremost, perl encourages via its programming culture (does the acronym TIMTOWDI strike terror in your head?) and through its design obscure programming. Thus, the risk of resulting unmaintainable code is very high.
Second, perl is technically a hybrid of different programming paradigms. This does not only add to the complexity and the before mentioned risky "TIMTOWDI" behaviour, but it more often than not gives perl coders who need/want to work in an existing perl environment a huge headache. The colleagues do it differently, they have been, for years.
Third, perl is highly deficient in what i would call "semantic integrity". It is like speaking a language with an unusual high percentage of phrases, lexical and grammatic exceptions.
Fourth, perl has a huge history. A history so large and moved that it carries a lot of weight of past programming paradigms, do's and dont's, hacks and "boobytraps". No business decision can be based upon that.
Fifth, perl is slower, bigger and consumes more memory, and does not offer bytecode by default. This, again, is not the fault of the perl maintainers, but the of the dead freight perl is still carrying for compatibility purposes and the lack of "one" way to do things.
Sixth, perl has a weird typing concept, which encourages misuse. (Hey, no other scripting language i know uses a library-include to render typing useable...)
Seventh, and this is nourished by my own experience, there is the phenomenon that you get much better (in terms of maintainability) perl code if you hire programmers who do not primarily program perl. This is weird, but my observation suggested, that this is because they don't tend to give in to certain sugar perl offers and use paradigms like OO more straight forward. The perl-enthusiasts I met as job applicants, who were altogether very capable programmers, were kind of proud of their obfuscated perl code. So proud that a lot of them even put it in their application (which was of course rejected prematurely).
Perl has done great, and I mean really GREAT things for the internet, for script language evolution and for businesses.
But it is time to let go, really.
That he stopped disclosing it as soon as he noticed he would get less money "from the internets"
Nah. He is like "I don't have a policy on immigration, so give me money for my policy on technology." - but indeed, he HAD and very probably still has a policy on immigrantion. But where can I read about it?
After all, the whole guy goes into office, not just the part of him with the cool technology policy and the comic.