in reply to Re: Should I learn Perl?
in thread Should I learn Perl?

KK, Didn't realize that Assembler had actually survived... Nice to see that you can still take it down to that level. Also thought C had kinda been superceded by C++; whats the deal between those two? Is C++ just a more specific application of C, or is it similar to the whole JavaScript/Java thing; where the two have nothing in common but a name?


Again, nice to see the same books being referenced again and again... good sign that I can trust them to get me into the thick of it.


Kinda noticed that Perl and Basic had a lot in common... JavaScript, too for that matter... the way they handle the variables and loops and such all has a familiar ring to it. The operators still look a little strange to me, as is the use of (), [], {} for seperate things... Im more used to puting everything in basic parenthases and quotes...Ill adjust quickly, I think.


I already checked out the tutorials, namely the one named 'The Basics', but it was already looking Greek to me, so I shouted out here. I figure I need a good book to be more familiar with the actual vocabulary first, then work on concepts; from what I've seen, the concepts will be the easy part for me. (the '#$amp{a$::bname&&()}' stuff is still looking a bit bizzarre tho! =)


Support as I've seen for Perl would be quite welcome... nice to see that everyone is willing to chip in for each other. Looking forward to not always looking like a moron! Probably be very proud first time I point out the bug in one of your codes!


Memory/cycles isn't really the problem for me... I like tight, error and bug free code that works well. I like even better that it does its job efficiently, and leaves everybody else scratching their heads wondering how I did it in only three lines. From what I've seen, Ill probably generally follow your suggestion of languages... but I'll probably put the assembler off till I got C, C++ and Java covered...


I can understand the TSR-80 problem... I lived with a Commodor 64 for a full year before I got a disk drive! Try running that long on tape! took almost 45 minutes just for Logo to load (after I boosted the tape drive speed!) Coulda been worse, tho... had a buddy that was real proud the day he got his Radio Shack special; the CoCo 3 (in color! WOOT!).


Me

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Should I learn Perl?
by tachyon (Chancellor) on Mar 10, 2003 at 08:12 UTC

    Here is my take on the languagues:

    Perl - Basic on steriods, instant gratification and debugging
         - Got a bad wrap in CGI circles because it was so easy to
         - do CGI stuff that lots of people did - BADLY
    C    - THE language that made programming what it is today
         - All the power of assembler in a (slightly) more user friendly package
    ASM  - Everything ends up here. To code C you need to have
         - a handle on the guts of the system anyway
    C++  - C extended to do OO better. Unnecessary for single programmer
         - as you can do it in C in half the code (procedural)
         - Forces you to be OO which is not needed for short stuff
         - It is way easier to do multi-programmer stuff OO with solid APIs
         - Yeah, yeah what starts little often suffers featuritis 
    Java - C++ with all the power toys taken away. Comiles to bytecode not ASM
         - Supposed to be portable but MS got involved ;-)
         - speed not that great due to partial compilation
         - TRENDY in management circles.
    

    Here is a nice one liner for you:

    perl -pi.bak -e 's/something/otherthing/g' <FILE LIST>

    That particular snippet does a search and replace on a list of files writing a backup to filename.bak in the process. Handy and 100s of times faster than doing the same in a Windows based editor.

    cheers

    tachyon

    s&&rsenoyhcatreve&&&s&n.+t&"$'$`$\"$\&"&ee&&y&srve&&d&&print

      Corrections about Java:

      Comiles to bytecode not ASM

      FUD. There are native compilers. Java is widespread and has tonnes of compilers, including many native ones. You can compile it to (almost) anything you want.

      Supposed to be portable but MS got involved

      FUD. Microsoft's more involved in Perl.

      speed not that great due to partial compilation

      Big can of worms here, so I'll be vague. It's not as fast as well-written c or even c++ but it is slightly faster than Perl. Most people will agree with that definition but how much faster depends on what your doing and how you're doing it.

      TRENDY in management circles.

      Once again, FUD. This is implying that it doesn't stand on it's own technically. The poster wanted a technical review, this is a cheap shot.

      For the record, THIS IS A lc(PERL) SITE! Do not ask for comparisons here, they'll be biased as hell. Would you go to a christian website and ask what the best religion is? Same deal, only it's worse with programming languages. Forget everything you've heard here. Study them all, learn on your own.

        The trendy in management circles was not intended as a cheap shot. Simply an observation, and an accurate one at that. If you wanted to learn a languague then there are likely to be more Java Jobs than Perl Jobs in the forseeable future. Sad IMHO but true.

        As you correctly note speed wise Java sits C C++ Java Procedural Perl OO Perl. But as always it is application dependent and speed is always better if the algotithms are better in any lang. For example at Re: Performance Question I showed one monk how a small change in approach could speed processing time for a large file from 166 hours (1 week) to < 6 hours. In this case the bottleneck was disk IO so it would not really matter what language you used.

        cheers

        tachyon

        s&&rsenoyhcatreve&&&s&n.+t&"$'$`$\"$\&"&ee&&y&srve&&d&&print