in reply to Perl for the Masses?

Slightly off-topic, I think it's important to understand that (IMHO) Perl is not a bells-and-whistles language. People who think VB is God's gift to anything will not (in general) be able to appreciate the strength and beauty of a proper tool.
As for PHBs, once they need a speedy solution to a serious problem, they'll thank God (and you). The GUIs can come later. I'm not saying it can't, or doesn't, happen differently, it's simply how I've seen it happen - a group of scripts grew in size and importance until it became important to supply an interface for the general public.

--- prechance

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Perl for the Masses?
by scott (Chaplain) on Jul 25, 2001 at 16:56 UTC

    And the difference between

    'Perl isn't a "true" language'

    and

    People who think VB is God's gift to anything will not ... appreciate ... a proper tool.

    is what, exactly?

    Scott

    ... they decided that Sneetches are Sneetches
    And no kind of Sneetch is the best on the beaches,
    That day, all the Sneetches forgot about stars
    And whether they had one, or not, upon thars.

[reply]
      I think the first probably means that the compiled snobs are saying that Perl's partially-interpreted nature means it's not a "true" language.

      The second refers to the idiocy of people who speak on topics that they have no knowledge of. :)

      Now, in VB's defense, it is a very, very useful tool. It makes the MS products (partially) extensible, and extensibility is (almost) always a "Good Thing"(tm). It's also great for sketching GUI's, just as Perl is great for sketching programs. But, just try writing a multi-platform data-munging tool in VB. *grins*

[reply]
        Making the MS products extensible also makes them trés insecure. Witness the Melissa phenonmenon, et al.
[reply]
        What do you mean partially interpretted?
        The scripts are scripts. Unless Perl performs a compilation procedure to change parts of your script into machine code at run time, it is totally interpretted. There's nothing wrong with this.

        Mind you, there are plenty of things you will never catch me doing in perl. It's a nice language, it's a useful language. I love it, BUT... You certainly CAN'T do some of the things that you can do in C or even in VB in perl. There is no inline assembly. Addressing memory is something you would have to do through a pm, with supplemental code. You'll never write an operating system or even load executable code (note I said load executable code, not run an executable), in perl, at least not perl 5.6, and not in any practical sort of way. Again, there's nothing wrong with this. Languages all have their niches. I would never do anything I use perl for in Prolog, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to abandon prolog. I think that people should be less "I'm a perl coder," "I'm a C/C++ coder," and more "I'm a coder, and I'm going to pick the appropriate language for this task." If nothing else, it is much more professional.

        Just Another Perl Backpacker
[reply]
      Very little difference, but somehow I don't think that's what you meant. You see, in my opinion People who say Perl isn't a "true" language, are guilty of much the same thing as those who think VB can solve all their problems. Granted, I may have been more strongly worded on the second issue (I suppose personal histories have shaped that), but both are closed-minded, and unproductive.

      Find the useful tool.

      --- perchance
      p.s. I don't have anything in particular against VB, more against bosses who extoll without cause.
[reply]

In Section Meditations