Perl-AMPL article in DDJ and TPJ

When the January 2005 edition of Dr Dobbs Journal hit my desk this morning, I noticed a feature article entitled "Metamodeling with Perl and AMPL". It was refreshing to read, for example:

After some consideration, Perl emerged as the winner. Visual Basic's design weaknesses and per-programmer licensing excluded it easily. C/C++ is too cumbersome. Java was a tempting option, but the ease with which researchers can throw together Perl programs made Perl our choice.

Though the article states the module is to be packaged via CPAN, I can't find any AMPL module on CPAN as yet. Googling revealed what looks like the same article in the December edition of The Perl Journal.

Comment on Perl-AMPL article in DDJ and TPJ

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Perl-AMPL article in DDJ and TPJ by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Jan 10, 2005 at 22:54 UTC
Now, if I could find any place on the web that resolves the AMPL initialism or maybe a short summary of the article's subject, I might even know why I should care… `:-)` Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re: Perl-AMPL article in DDJ and TPJ by Anonymous Monk on Jan 10, 2005 at 21:45 UTC
Seeing I'm not a subscriber, how about a brief summary/review? Also, when they are listing languages, I didn't notice Python and/or Ruby being considered. While it's a pain in the butt to always defend choices, when they are defending one choice as "ease of creation", I think "ease of maintaince" would also be a concern. Not saying that Perl is wrong, it's far from it. Not trying to be a troll at all, it's just that they compared apples and elephants, when languages that were very Perl like weren't considered?	[reply]