Re: Real Languages vs. Perl

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Real Languages vs. Perl by doran (Deacon) on Jan 20, 2001 at 10:27 UTC
You kinda missed my questions. I realize that there are times when Perl isn't the first, best choice. My questions really are "Why isn't Perl a real, full programming language?" and "What benefits (other than the obvious ones in the node you mention) are being missed by folks who program in Perl?" I suspect Michael Swaine was talking about more than just legacy code and Real Time apps and I'm curious if others here share his view. thanks...	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: Real Languages vs. Perl by jepri (Parson) on Jan 21, 2001 at 03:32 UTC
Yep, fair enough, I thought this was another when ain't it the best thread. I'm with everyone else here - Perl is Turing complete and has plenty of nice feautres on top of that. I've noticed amoung my friends that Perl tends to be put down the hardest by crazed C programmers who feel that a language that mollycoddles it's programmers by making programming easier can't be a real language. So that statement "Why isn't Perl a real, full programming language" probably has a lot of cultural overtones we are missing from the lack of context. ____________________ Jeremy I didn't believe in evil until I dated it.	[reply]
Re: Real Languages vs. Perl by rrwo (Friar) on Jan 21, 2001 at 01:13 UTC
Not having read the article, I can't comment on it. "Real" is one of those words with no real meaning. It's just a funny, squishy, feel-good sort of word. About this thread, though... I think it's pointless to worry about these kinds of comments. Even experts have their strong opinions and bigotries based on bad experiences, misinformation, bar conversations, or stock options.	[reply]