Differences between version 12 and predecessor to the previous major change of WhyIHatePerl.
Other diffs: Previous Revision, Previous Author, or view the Annotated Edit History
| Newer page: | version 12 | Last edited on Saturday, March 22, 2003 11:38:21 pm | by PerryLorier | Revert |
| Older page: | version 11 | Last edited on Saturday, March 22, 2003 7:38:33 pm | by GlynWebster | Revert |
@@ -66,8 +66,12 @@
''But Python __is__ an attempt at saying something well. There's elegance and forethought in the design of Python that's missing from Perl. "Saying something well" in software involves making the entire program well-structured, well-structured and comprehensible to others. Perl's great number of syntactic options at the expression level doesn't help there. --GlynWebster''
%%%
''That you can change the sequence of things in a sentence - that is what my point is about. It does not let you chose between "I want to say the same thing differently depending on the situation" vs "Depending on the situation, I want to say the same thing differently" or even "Differently do I want to say the same depending on the situation". Neither is the verbosity is up to the programmer to choose in to [Python]. I find it very frustrating how [Python] doesn't let me get to the point - and no, that doesn't mean my [Perl] code is compact and incomprehensible, au contraire. I recently [argued such a point|http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=239615] with RandalSchwartz (who originated the term "[Perl] hacker"). [Perl] gives you the freedom to do what__ever__ you want. The problem, as the LarryWall quote I cited hints at, is more due to the fact that, well, the majority of programmers are mediocre at best, so [Perl] is a dangerous tool in their hands. It doesn't constrain bad habits at all so they end up writing horrid [Perl] code, where [Python] would have forced them to follow a decent style. Why's that a problem? Because an advanced programmer who (should) no longer be in need of those tight confines can't escape them. [Perl] is not a language to learn programming with; it's a language to get your job done. Just like [Pascal] is a neat language for a beginner to start out with, but not for an expert to get things done in. --AristotlePagaltzis''
+
+The thing with Pascal is that it was impossible to do most things. Standard Pascal didn't treat files like most newer OS's did (a stream of bytes? wazzat?), but it's big failing was that the size of the array is part of the type, and there was no way to write a generic function to handle arrays of varying sizes. Since strings were a kind of array, you couldn't write a function to take a generic string. Sure, langauges like TurboPascal resolved most of these issues in incompatible ways. Delphi shows that Pascal can be a nice language when "touched up".
+
+Perl may be expressive, but the problem is that you have to maintain other peoples perl programs, and since other peoples Perl programs are difficult at best to modify, you have a problem. while this may not be the language's fault, it __is__ a problem with the language IMHO. --PerryLorier
----
[2] I think a similar, pleasant feeling of busyness while coding explains some of the popularity of [C]. "I'm doing lots of work, I must be getting a lot done. Right?"
