While I completely see, and can agree on your point. I think it exemplifies Perl's ability to cater to some areas (or edge cases) that any other language wouldn't even consider making possible. But maybe that's because it's an "interpreted" language? Dunno. I'll really need to ponder that more. But initially, that's my take on it. And let us not forget; Wall was trained as a linguist, and the design of Perl is very much informed by linguistic principles.
Say what you will about programing languages. But if there's any comparison to the spoken language, if I've learned anything. I've learned, it's all a matter of interpretation -- what's one to one, is something completely different, to another. Or, in other terms; TMTOWTDI ;)
No disrespect intended. Just my take on it. :)
--Chris
Yes. What say about me, is true.
In reply to Re^2: Autoboxing ... "Yes We Can" ( or how I learned to love TIMTOWTDI ;)
by taint
in thread Autoboxing ... "Yes We Can" ( or how I learned to love TIMTOWTDI ;)
by LanX
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |