You say that Java isn't your idea of a lightweight language. I don't disagree with that, but hopefully you aren't suggesting that Perl is. Perl is far from being lightweight language, in all aspects. It has a syntax hardly anyone, including wizards with more than five years of experience, can fully remember, and it has a very wide range of primitives. I doubt there's a language with a significant user base out there that has such a complex function to open a file. It was only yesterday that on perlmonks people were confused about 1-arg open.

Abigail

Since you asked, here's the equivalent in C (for those that aren't familiar -- I'm sure you are):

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void)
{
  int   i;
  for ( i = 0; i < 10; i++ )
  {
    printf ( "%d", i );
  }
}
[download]

The equivalent in Perl is

  for ( $i = 0; $i < 10; $i++ )
  {
    print $i;
  }
[download]

No variable declarations, a friendlier print statement, and no mysterious 'cargo-cult' include thingy.

Don't get me wrong -- I have programmed in C since the early 80's and I love the language. But Perl takes care of lots of the underlying stuff (how many times did I write fopen(), fread() and fclose() statements I wonder). That's why I think Perl is a better choice than C.

Perl can be a heavyweight language, but it can also be lightweight. To use the car analogy, C is a bit like the British Triumph, a little finicky, but piles of power and cornering. Pascal is a bit like a Pinto or a CV5 stuck in second gear. Perl is like a Porsche or a Lexus, nimble yet powerful.

--t. alex

"Mud, mud, glorious mud. Nothing quite like it for cooling the blood!"
--Michael Flanders and Donald Swann

Well, you are forgetting a my $i if you want to have equivalent code. I maintain the code is nearly identical - there's a few lines more in C, which look a lot for such a short program, but it wasn't linear in the size of the Perl program. Had you have had 100 of such loops, you'd have had the same amount of extra lines.

I never claimed that C would have been a better choice than Perl. Instead, I said that I didn't consider C a good first language either. IMO there's only one reason to learn C before learning Perl and that's because there's so much of C in Perl. It makes you a better Perl programmer.

Abigail

Perl is like a Porsche or a Lexus, nimble yet powerful.

I rather think Perl is more like a little Z3 that'll turn into a cement mixer, eigtheen wheeler, station wagon (complete with wood panel sides), tow truck, fire engine, or lear jet with the push of a button.

Ok. . . with the push of many buttons in exactly the right order. . . or close to the right order anyway.

-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";

for my $i (0..9) {
  print $i;
}
[download]

print 0..9;
[download]

The point that is appears you missed, my dear Watson :), is that I was debating similarities between C and Perl with Abigail-II. I was not trying to out-golf anyone on a zero to nine loop.

Particularly :) Abigail.

--t. alex

"Mud, mud, glorious mud. Nothing quite like it for cooling the blood!"
--Michael Flanders and Donald Swann