Re^3: But you don't WANT to do everything in Perl!

Look, tovarishch, he never suggested that Java guys attack, or Perl guys are innocent lambs. All he said is that the discussion went from the merits of the concepts of strong typing, etc., to the merits of the languages.

You are misquoting the article about OO. The poster there claimed that Perl has OO features, not that it is an OO language. No one is claiming Perl is an OO language, yet you consistently come here to shout that it's not an OO language. You're right - Perl is not an OO language.

Comment on Re^3: But you don't WANT to do everything in Perl!

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: But you don't WANT to do everything in Perl! by herveus (Prior) on Oct 11, 2005 at 11:23 UTC
Howdy! ...and once you say "strong typing" (or "weak typing"), you are probably off in to serious hand-waving unless you have taken care to clearly define exactly what you mean when you say "strong typing", as the term is used in the literature to mean diametrically opposed concepts. In one perfectly reasonable sense, Perl is far more strongly typed than java. I think that trotting out the phrase is often an attempt to take a swipe by implying that strong == good (and therefore weak == bad) thus my fu is better than your fu. It's mostly just BS. yours, Michael	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: But you don't WANT to do everything in Perl!
by herveus (Prior) on Oct 11, 2005 at 11:23 UTC

...and once you say "strong typing" (or "weak typing"), you are probably off in to serious hand-waving unless you have taken care to clearly define exactly what *you* mean when you say "strong typing", as the term is used in the literature to mean diametrically opposed concepts. In one perfectly reasonable sense, Perl is far more strongly typed than java.

I think that trotting out the phrase is often an attempt to take a swipe by implying that strong == good (and therefore weak == bad) thus my fu is better than your fu.

It's mostly just BS.

yours,
Michael

[reply]