in reply to Re: Roads to Perl
in thread Roads to Perl

I can't even read python, I wish I knew why.

The conclusion I came to when I dabbled in Python was that it was important to think like Guido. Which, it seems, I don't. Fortunately, it is not necessary to think like Larry to understand Perl -- which is a good thing, because I don't think many of us could manage.

If I tried Python again now, I might do better. At the time, my primary experience with OO was through Inform (which sets a very high standard for how useful the paradigm should be in the language). OO is pervasive in Python, and I was not accustomed at the time to thinking that way about every problem, or most problems. Now, having done OO in Perl5 (which does *not* meet Inform's standard of how good the OO in a language should be), I've learned to deal with OO stuff in a language other than Inform, and so if I tried Python again, I might do better.

But, now I am so deeply comfortable in Perl, that Python would have to offer something really compelling to lure me away, and with Perl6 on the horizon, I doubt that's possible. In other words, I could probably learn Python now, but I no longer want to.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Roads to Perl
by blazar (Canon) on Sep 03, 2005 at 13:20 UTC
    The conclusion I came to when I dabbled in Python was that it was important to think like Guido. Which, it seems, I don't. Fortunately, it is not necessary to think like Larry to understand Perl -- which is a good thing, because I don't think many of us could manage.
    Very nice way to concisely express the difference between Python and Perl: indeed it does make sense, for in the former "there should be only one way to do it", then it's (practically) obvious that it must be Guido's way, whereas in Perl we all now that TIMTOWTDI by design.

    Also, Perl is eclectic and multiparadigmatic by design too. And while we're at it, Perl6 will be even more so (even too much, some people fear!).