in reply to Re: Life beyond CGI and DBI
in thread Life beyond CGI and DBI

I always kind of liked PERL. It has an ominous, all-powerful sound to it, kind of like COBOL ;-)

The real test is which sounds more impressive Perl vs Ruby, or PERL vs Ruby. Do not underestimate the power of the allcaps!

And to the original poster:

First a clarification of the above: Perl is the correct way to refer to the language, perl refers to the actual executable. Hence, you hear sayings like "Only perl can parse Perl." PERL is just a common incorrect spelling of Perl. Of course, anyone who actually bothers to learn these things, and especially bothers to correct people about them, has way too much time on their hands ;-)

As for leading a sheltered programming existance, do you know any other languages? Perl is just a language. There are a great many things Perl simply cannot do, and many more that it is horrible inefficient (in execution time, memory use, maintainability, and more) at doing. If you haven't already learned them, I recommend taking the time to learn Python (or Lisp, I prefer Python), C, and Prolog (that order is probably best).

If you already know those languages, or are just looking to expand in Perl's realm here are a few things you should definately check out:

Also, you may wish to take a more detailed look at other methods of data representation. Compare different databases (relational or otherwise) and more advanced data structures and the algorithms that manipulate them. Information theory is also extremely interesting albeit a bit out of the scope of your question.

Oh, and one more thing. Avoid Perl poetry and Obfuscation like the plague. That shit will mess you up permanantly ;-)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Life beyond CGI and DBI
by etcshadow (Priest) on Oct 09, 2003 at 03:43 UTC
    There are a great many things Perl simply cannot do

    Yes. These things include:

    • Solving the Halting Problem
    • Parsing natural languages (yet)
    • Solving the Napsack Problem in polynomial-order time (or can it??? :-D )

    I mean, come on... Perl is Turing Complete (standard boilerplate regarding assumptions about sufficient storage room, as Turing Machines, technically, have unlimitted memory), and thus can do anything that a Turing Machine is capable of. Every other programming language that currently exists (bearing in mind that there aren't any programming languages yet developed for quantum computers, which could, possibly be something beyond a Deterministic Turing Machine) is no more capable than a Turing Machine. Therefore, I can safely state that there is nothing which Perl "simply cannot do", but which other programming languages can do.

    To paraphrase: Perl can do anything that can be done on a computer, and no programming language can make a computer do more than a computer is capable of doing.

    Of course, you could have been trying to use hyperbole, or being figurative...


    ------------
    :Wq
    Not an editor command: Wq
[reply]
      I mean, come on... Perl is Turing Complete (standard boilerplate regarding assumptions about sufficient storage room, as Turing Machines, technically, have unlimitted memory), and thus can do anything that a Turing Machine is capable of.
      Yeah, yeah, yeah. Modern day computers however, aren't Turing Machines. We also want our programs to run fast (TM's, lacking random access memory aren't fast) and to interface. Ever tried reading the output of another program on a TM? Access a database from a TM? Play a DVD on a TM?

      While a TM is useful in discussing the solvability of an algoritmic problem, it's not very useful in discussing what you can do with a language, as programs do far more than reading predefined input from a tape and writing output to it.

      Abigail

[reply]

      Let's see Perl produce a binary (no Perl on the system) to function as a device driver.

      Yes, Perl is a language specification, so you could compile code written to the specification to do this. Of course you're ultimately technically correct, but in all practicality it could not currently be done.

[reply]
Re: Re: Re: Life beyond CGI and DBI
by thelenm (Vicar) on Nov 14, 2003 at 20:31 UTC

    But hey, I've seen people refer to Ruby as RUBY. I don't know what they think it stands for. Maybe since PERL is spelled in all caps in all the Teach Yourself PERL books, they figure RUBY should be too?

    -- Mike

    --
    XML::Simpler does not require XML::Parser or a SAX parser. It does require File::Slurp.
    -- grantm, perldoc XML::Simpler

[reply]
Re: Re: Re: Life beyond CGI and DBI
by poqui (Deacon) on Oct 09, 2003 at 16:27 UTC
    too bad you posted as an anonymous coward, I would have ++ you if you had logged in.
[reply]

      I'll survive.

      Perhaps you should reconsider why the node was posted though. What possible motivation could I have if not to increase the reputation of an alias? Maybe you'll find the answer englightening. Then again, probably not.

[reply]

In Section Meditations