Re: Re: Real Languages vs. Perl

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...

Comment on Re: Re: Real Languages vs. Perl

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: Re: Real Languages vs. Perl
by jepri (Parson) on Jan 21, 2001 at 03:32 UTC

____________________
Jeremy
I didn't believe in evil until I dated it.

[reply]