Re: Camel vs Llama for a newbie
by davorg (Chancellor) on Sep 07, 2001 at 19:00 UTC
|
Depends on your experience. If you're a non-programmer
who wants to learn Perl as your first programming language,
then you'd be better off with Elements of Programming
with Perl or Beginning Perl. If you're a
programmer who just wants to learn a new language then
either the Llama or the Camel might be for you. The Llama
(Learning Perl) is a tutorial and the Camel
(Programming Perl) is a reference. Some people
can learn from references, some need a tutorial.
If you feel the Llama is over your head, then the Camel
will be waaay over your head and you'd be better off looking
at one of the two books I listed above.
--
<http://www.dave.org.uk>
Perl Training in the UK <http://www.iterative-software.com>
| [reply] |
How about The Cookbook
by ducky (Scribe) on Sep 08, 2001 at 13:14 UTC
|
Hmmm... I'm suprised The Perl Cookbook aka the Ram, hasn't been mentioned yet. To me, it's a third approach (by example) to learning perl (the others being the llama tutorial and the camel reference). It's full of practical code snippets both beginner level and advanced.
Of course everyone learns through different means. But if you're having some frustration using just the Llama book, this might be the better choice over another tutorial book or an even more dense reference tome.
In the end, I'd suggest getting the Camel book eventually, anyway - the triad of the Llama, the Ram, and the Camel is a very potent combination indeed.
-Ducky
Update:better link to the cookbook =)
| [reply] |
Re: Camel vs Llama for a newbie
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Sep 07, 2001 at 19:42 UTC
|
I'm teaching my girlfriend who's never programmed before from the Llama. I've taught C++/Java programmers from the Camel. What I've found is that the Llama tends to be too simple for most professional programmers. The Camel can be a little ... dense sometimes, but you should be playing around with the language anyways.
I, personally, would stick with the books from O'Reilly. I've read a number of other books and ORA just tends to have better-written and more readable books. In addition, a number of ORA authors hang out here, most notably merlyn (who writes the Llama).
------ We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age. Don't go borrowing trouble. For programmers, this means Worry only about what you need to implement. | [reply] |
|
|
I, personally, would stick with the books
from O'Reilly.
Well, if you did that, you'd miss out on Object
Oriented Perl, Effective Perl Programming and
Perl Debugged which are three of the best Perl books
available.
And more non-ORA authors than ORA authors hang out
here :)
--
<http://www.dave.org.uk>
Perl Training in the UK <http://www.iterative-software.com>
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
I agree that O'Reilly is the best way to go as well. The other cool thing you could do is check out Safari. For $10 bucks a month you can subscribe to 5 online O'Reilly books.
Even though I own both the Camel and the Llama I find myself using Safari more just because I can search. heh
check it out at: http://safari.oreilly.com/
Cheers!
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
I've read Object Oriented Perl, and Data Munging with Perl, and a number of non-ORA other books. Personally, while I'm sure that all these authors are an excellent programmers, their books tended to be pedantic and (I felt) didn't add very much to the 3rd ed. Camel's treatment of whichever subject.
Effective Perl Programming was a delightful surprise. But, it still didn't add a huge amount to my personal knowledge. Programming Perls was the same way.
If you want to learn to program, take a course.
If you want to learn the language of Perl, read the Camel book, then hang out on PM.
If you want to learn how to program well, it doesn't matter how many Perl books you read because you will still have a myopic view of programming. Read Code Complete and The Pragmatic Programmer for that knowledge.
------ We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age. Don't go borrowing trouble. For programmers, this means Worry only about what you need to implement.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|