Re^3: Why are other popular languages very different from Perl when installing libraries, e.g. no testing needed and no compilation of C/C++ code done

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Why are other popular languages very different from Perl when installing libraries, e.g. no testing needed and no compilation of C/C++ code done by Tux (Canon) on Apr 07, 2011 at 09:18 UTC
But quite often the fun factor does not outweigh the FUD he's spreading with untruth about perl and its community. I still agree his posts are worth reading. Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn	[reply]
Re^4: Why are other popular languages very different from Perl when installing libraries, e.g. no testing needed and no compilation of C/C++ code done by hermida (Scribe) on Apr 09, 2011 at 18:22 UTC
Tux++ and does anyone ever mention the likely damage caused by JavaFan's ahem, "witty and sarcastic" comments? Remember most if not all of PerlMonks is indexed by search engines and JavaFan's utterly stupid comments come when you do searches with such keywords! For example his comments come up first when using such keywords in search engine see here: good programmers Python evil Perl and most people searching Google et al for information on programming languages will see stuff like this and they won't know he is being sarcastic. Doesn't take a brainiac to figure this out, JavaFan is it worth it? For me, an avid supporter of Perl for such a long time I vote NO. Most of us actually have meaningful posts when comparing particulars between languages or things other languages are doing, it's just smart to always look around you and discuss it within our community.	[reply]
Re^5: Why are other popular languages very different from Perl when installing libraries, e.g. no testing needed and no compilation of C/C++ code done by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 09, 2011 at 21:52 UTC
and they won't know he is being sarcastic. Unfortunately, it is even worse than that. When you search for something, the primacy of what you find is driven by how many people linked to what someone said. It does not distinguish between: Did you see what this clever person said? and Did you see what this stupid/silly/bitter/sarcastic person said? There is no attempt to separate positive from negative references. Much less, humorous, ironic, sardonic or sarcastic references. And in truth, much of the audience is equally incapable of such distinction. Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.	[reply]
Re^5: Why are other popular languages very different from Perl when installing libraries, e.g. no testing needed and no compilation of C/C++ code done by marto (Cardinal) on Apr 09, 2011 at 18:38 UTC
Why are you linking via http://www.lmgtfy.com?	[reply]
Re^6: Why are other popular languages very different from Perl when installing libraries, e.g. no testing needed and no compilation of C/C++ code done by hermida (Scribe) on Apr 10, 2011 at 11:59 UTC
Sorry, thought it would one step less for people to just click on the Let Me Google That For You LMGTFY link I made to show the search I did to pull up JavaFan's nonsense.	[reply]
Re^7: Why are other popular languages very different from Perl when installing libraries, e.g. no testing needed and no compilation of C/C++ code done by marto (Cardinal) on Apr 10, 2011 at 12:42 UTC
Re^8: Why are other popular languages very different from Perl when installing libraries, e.g. no testing needed and no compilation of C/C++ code done by hermida (Scribe) on Apr 10, 2011 at 22:29 UTC
Sarcasm is bad by LanX (Saint) on Apr 10, 2011 at 13:43 UTC
Fetch the cushions! Cheers Rolf	[reply]
Re^4: Why are other popular languages very different from Perl when installing libraries, e.g. no testing needed and no compilation of C/C++ code done by InfiniteSilence (Curate) on Apr 11, 2011 at 17:36 UTC
I agree. The post was truly hilarious! Celebrate Intellectual Diversity	[reply]