Re: Is Programming Perl still relevant as a reference book?

As I'm getting older I'm starting to realise there are some texts out there that are still very relevant, even if they are years old. Would the original K&R book be of value to me as a C programmer after 15 years? Definately.

The Camel Book is a great read; I thoroughly recommend it and have found myself turning to it time and time again in the last 5-6 years. There are some interesting chapters to browse through from time to time, such as optimised methods of coding for speed, terseness, maintainability, etc.

Comment on Re: Is Programming Perl still relevant as a reference book?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Is Programming Perl still relevant as a reference book? by vrk (Chaplain) on Mar 02, 2007 at 19:19 UTC
I can attest that K&R is still relevant and it is an excellent book; I have a hardcopy. However, the case is different: C is standardized, Perl is not. The C language, save unofficial vendor extensions, remained the same for a good ten years or so (from C89 to C99). No new keywords, same semantics. Even the standard library stayed the same. Also, most common C compilers still fail to support the full C99 standard, which means most C code is still C89. Reading perl58\d?delta, as linked by ysth, indicates that Perl has indeed changed in seven years. -- print "Just Another Perl Adept\n";	[reply]
Re^3: Is Programming Perl still relevant as a reference book? by DrHyde (Prior) on Mar 05, 2007 at 10:03 UTC
Yes, perl has changed. Nigh-on all those changes have been additions, not deletions or changes in old functionality. Therefore the Camel book is still relevant.	[reply]