Python? Really? Do you mean Ruby?IMHO in large enterprise environment Ruby is almost not visible. At the same time Python is gaining ground as universities both in the USA and Europe now teach Python in intoductory classes and people come "knowing some Python". That's alone is a huge factor. Python is also now installed on all Linux distributions by default (like Perl) and there are some system programs written in Python (yum, Anaconda, etc) which implicitly suggest that Python has Red Hat mark of adoption too.
To say nothing about the list of IDE available. Perl does not even ship with the "Standard IDE" although Padre, which is somewhat competitive with Komodo is available for free, but the latest binary distribution suitable for beginners is from 2012. This IMHO is highly detrimental to the language adoption. My feeling is that for Perl to remain competitive IDE should be maintained and shipped along with Perl interpreter. May be at the expense of some esoteric modules included.
Also compare number of books per year devoted to Python and available via Amazon for 2017 with the number of books devoted to Perl for the same period(quality issues aside). All this creates a real pressure to use Python everywhere, the pressure that I as a person who uses Perl (and will continue to use it, as I prefer Perl to Python) feel.
In other words "It's like deja-vu, all over again": looks to me like "Java story" on new level (and with a better language then Java).
Even in such "Perlish" domain as bioinformatics/genome decoding, Python gradually gains ground at the expense of Perl. The same is true in some "numeric computations" domains (via Numpy). There might be other factors at play as well. That's sad, because IMHO Perl is a great scripting language which can be used on many different levels, starting from AWK/SED replacement tool.
The list of references to related Perl Monk posts is really helpful. Thanks a lot !
Especially the first one Strategies for maintenance of horrible code? by converter (Jul 12, 2006). It contains several additional useful references posted by eyepopslikeamosquito
I would also add Analyzing large Perl code base. by Dmitry (Apr 14, 2005). Among others it contains the following post:
In any case, attempts to create a relevant to this topic list of Permonks threads is a more constructive approach then yet another semi-religious discussion about proper use of OO in Perl. Your mileage may vary.Re: Analyzing large Perl code base. by dave0 on Apr 15, 2005 at 15:32 UTC ====================================Having recently done this on a fairly large codebase that grew organically (no design, no refactoring) over the course of four years, I feel your pain.Writing a testsuite, on any level, is nearly essential for this. If you're rewriting an existing module, you'll need to ensure it's compatible with the old one, and the only sane way to do that is to test. If the old code is monolithic, it might be difficult to test individual units, but don't let that stop you from testing at a higher level.
B::Xref helped me make sense of the interactions in the old codebase. I didn't bother with any visualization tools or graph-creation, though. I just took the output of perl -MO=Xref filename for each file, removed some of the cruft with a text editor, ran it through mpage -4 to print, and spent a day with coffee and pencil, figuring out how things worked. <p. Pretty much the same tactic was used on the actual code. Print it out, annotate it away from the computer, and then sit down with the notes to implement the refactoring. If your codebase is huge (mine was about 4-5k lines in several .pl and .pm files, and was still manageable) you might not want to do this, though.
In reply to Re^4: Perl archeology: Need help in refactoring of old Perl code that does not use strict (hurry up and wait)
by likbez
in thread Perl archeology: Need help in refactoring of old Perl code that does not use strict
by likbez
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |