As usual it's an excellent read, and as usual he makes reference to Perl, as usual damning it with faint praise.
Personally, I didn't think it was very faint. Quite the opposite. I've always had the impression that PG rather likes Perl - probably because of the stuff it stole from LISP ;-)
I'll also admit I'm probably standing too close to see the forest for the trees, so you tell me, what is stunningly bad in Perl?
For me stunningly bad things are:
Those two things alone would remove 90% of the FUD I have to deal with when advocating Perl.
The Perl 5 VM is also a very, very scary thing (well - the source code scares me anyway :-) Messing with the op/parse tree at run time can be hugely useful since you can create domain specific languages really easily. A good abstract VM makes this simple (yay Parrot!)
(Please include the standard "I like perl and think its advantages more than outweigh its disadvantages" disclaimer ;-)
In reply to Re: "There are some stunningly novel ideas in Perl" -- Paul Graham
by adrianh
in thread "There are some stunningly novel ideas in Perl" -- Paul Graham
by grinder
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |