Joe Camel

notsoevil has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

After the jargon file was mentioned in the poll, I started randomly looking at definitions (Fisher Yates in my head, I s'pose).

I found this bit of anti-Perl commentary.

Check out their link to Perl as well. Apparently Perl is just hairy awk.

Joe Camel and the Perl Camel are of no direct relation. Joe Camel was raised poorly by adopted parents, as Camels by nature are inherently good, regardless of philosophical arguments to the contrary.

Please note that direct or indirect use of Perl will not cause cancer, like its aforementioned cousin. Unless eaten of course. :-)

-- notsoevil --

Comment on Joe Camel

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re (tilly) 1: Joe Camel by tilly (Archbishop) on Dec 22, 2000 at 05:30 UTC
Are you surprised? Eric Raymond has some strong biases, and one of them is a love of Python. For another famous example of his biases, see the entry for OS/2. The fact is that OS/2 is much, much better than he lets on, but he is an old Unix hacker and things that came from the original evil empire often don't get a fair shake in his book. Besides which, Perl isn't a perfect language. It is an extremely good tool. But no tool will last forever. And heck, even I have gotten irritated with Perl from time to time...	[reply]
Re: Joe Camel by notsoevil (Pilgrim) on Dec 22, 2000 at 02:00 UTC
Of course, I was not seeking Perl wisdom when I posted this -- I just could not find an appropriate "Perl FYI" or "Perl BTW" section to post to. Pardon. -- notsoevil --	[reply]
(jeffa) Re: Re: Joe Camel by jeffa (Bishop) on Dec 22, 2000 at 02:02 UTC
This would probably be a better fit in Meditations Jeff L-LL-L--L-LL-L--L-LL-L-- -R--R-RR-R--R-RR-R--R-RR F--F--F--F--F--F--F--F-- (the triplet paradiddle)	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: Joe Camel by notsoevil (Pilgrim) on Dec 22, 2000 at 02:04 UTC
I realised this after posting. Accept my humble apology? -- notsoevil --	[reply]


Syntactic Confectionery Delight
	PerlMonks