[sf-perl] Stack Overflow Blog: "Why Perl is still relevant in 2022"
Sean Dodger Cannon
el.dodgero at gmail.com
Mon Jul 11 03:45:48 PDT 2022
I don't know if "he" refers to me or Mr. Schlomi. I don't see where either
of us posted any perl examples, primitive or otherwise.
Or do you mean the person who wrote the article in the OP?
On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 at 12:07, Joseph Brenner <doomvox at gmail.com> wrote:
> Myself, I'd make the point that the while the perl examples he
> presents are primitive by modern standards, they *do* still work for
> him, which is one of perl's strengths: a respect for backwards
> On 7/9/22, Shlomi Fish <shlomif at shlomifish.org> wrote:
> > hi,
> > On Sat, 9 Jul 2022 00:54:45 -0700
> > Sean Dodger Cannon <el.dodgero at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Friday, 8 July 2022, Shlomi Fish <shlomif at shlomifish.org> wrote:
> >> > Hi Mr. Dodger!
> >> Hi Ms. or Mr. Schlomi!
> > it is "Mr." and "Shlomi" - https://www.shlomifish.org/meta/FAQ/
> > .
> >> Moose and Moo are not that bad, IMO, do not have a prohibitive overhead,
> >> and
> >> > make writing Perl OOP code easier and cleaner:
> >> >
> >> > https://perl-begin.org/topics/object-oriented/
> >> Uh, Ms. or Mr. Fish: I *know about them*. Nothing in my message
> >> I
> >> was in any way unfamiliar with them.
> >> But in my opinion, they *don’t* make writing perl OO code easier and
> >> cleaner. They make writing perl OO code stupider and arbitrarily
> >> it. And my Perl *was clean in the first place* because I’m anal about
> >> keeping it readable. I don’t golf.
> >> Isn’t it at all conceivable to you (or anyone else drinking the moose
> >> “modern perl” flavor-aid) that there are people out here who know
> >> perfectly
> >> well what it is and just *don’t like it*?
> >> Not liking it doesn’t mean we don’t understand it or don’t know what it
> >> is.
> >> It just means we aren’t buying in to all this Moo* crap.
> >> OOP predates java and Moose is very different from java's OOP:
> >> >
> >> It was an obvious figure of speech. I was making fun of (^Moo(se)?).
> >> Again,
> >> I don’t need a condescending link to tell me what I already know about
> >> something I already assessed and decided is useless, wasteful crap.
> >> I don’t like it, I’m not going to like it, I don’t use it, I’m not going
> >> to
> >> use it, and I’m very unhappy that you moose lodge zealots have convinced
> >> all the pointy-haired managers that those of us who roll our eyes at
> >> rubbish are somehow less talented or capable because it makes it harder
> >> get jobs when a random shibboleth has been added for no reason. It was a
> >> dick move on y’all’s part.
> >> Quite honestly, I think that if you or anyone actually NEEDS Moo/Moose
> >> “make writing Perl OOP code easier and cleaner”, that if you actually
> >> thought Perl OO programming was *at all* hard and somehow needed that
> >> simplified for you, and that if you can’t write clean, readable,
> >> self-documenting code without a moose holding your hand, then maybe it’s
> >> not *me* who should be looked down on as the inferior programmer.
> > Moo provides enough hooks to write dirtier code if needed. And there's
> > the
> > stoic method: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L4qauTiCY4 .
> >> > Honestly, while I still love and use Perl 5, I also like Python 3 a
> >> >
> >> > *
> >> >
> >> > Python is very easy to learn, and some people were able to tweak py
> >> > just
> >> > by opening an existing codebase in a text editor.
> >> >
> >> From what I’ve seen, yes, python is very easy to learn for people who
> >> *don’t already know how to program*.
> >> It is *not* one of the easier languages to transition to for a developer
> >> already fluent in any pascal-descendant language. It honestly comes off
> >> like someone described the idea of a programming language to someone who
> >> had never used one but was clever enough to come up with one from the
> >> description. Kudos to that, sure, but trying to learn it when fluent in
> >> curly-brace language is like trying to learn Japanese when fluent in a
> >> Romance language.
> >> Is Japanese sensible? Sure. Is it strict? Absolutely. Is it efficient?
> >> Totally. Is it precise? Way more than English for sure. Is it anything
> >> like
> >> a Romance language? Not by leagues and fathoms.
> >> and numerous other languages descended from pascal easily.
> >> But to jump from this paradigm to something completely weird like Python
> >> is
> >> actually harder than just learning Python in the first place from
> >> Just for instance, the thing that we call a “string literal” is, in
> >> Python,
> >> referred to as a “constant”. In Perl and other C/Pascal related
> >> if constants exist at all the term means an immutable variable. A
> >> that can only by changed by re-assigning it (effectively overloading
> >> It cannot be changed “in place”.
> >> Python doesn’t see this as anything special because that’s *all
> >> variables*.
> >> *Every* variable in Python is what Perl thinks of as a constant. Nothing
> >> can be changed in place and the assignment operator is the only way to
> >> alter that which is inside a variable (though at least you can go inside
> >> the assorted structs, you’re still using assignment).
> >> So, in effect, they differ down to the level of actually disagreeing on
> >> what the definitions of the words “constant” and “variable” are. I don’t
> >> know if you can get more fundamentally different than that.
> >> Another factor is that there aren’t really tutorials or classes for
> >> that aren’t remedial for an advanced programmer of anything else. Throw
> >> that “we can’t even agree what constant means” problem and you have a
> >> perfect storm recipe for disaster in trying to transition.
> >> A newbie will actually benefit from chapter upon chapter in O’Reilly’s
> >> Learning Python on “what is a variable” and “what can you do with a
> >> variable” and “what is a function” and so on. I’ve thumbed my way
> >> that book and gotten halfway in before anything seemed actually
> >> instructional to an experienced programmer.
> >> So the solution should be “ok skip it, go to the meat”—except the
> >> problem. I mean that “constant” problem. Just when you think things make
> >> sense, it’s all “uhh WTF?” and you realise there’s some basic core
> >> that’s just treated totally differently in Python but the details about
> >> that are buried in the prior 300 pages you just skipped and you don’t
> >> where.
> >> So what do you do? BS? Fake it ‘til you make it and slog through? Or go
> >> back and read a decent sized novel’s worth of tedious, boring, almost
> >> insultingly remedial crap just to try to get at the one bigger buried in
> >> there you need?
> >> It would be like learning Icelandic and then realising you don’t know
> >> “þ” means but having to dig through 200-300 pages on the alphabet you
> >> already know because you don’t know where that would go in the alphabet
> >> and
> >> it’s not in an alphabetical order you recognise anyway. You want to
> >> a
> >> language but you’re stuck because you don’t know 1 or 1 of the ABCs,
> >> though you know the rest. Quite a þ in the side, truly.
> >> Anyway, literally anyone who isn’t special needs can tweak python *or
> >> other code at a higher level than assembly* just by opening an existing
> >> source code file in an editor, even if most people are afraid to do so.
> >> of course that’s true.
> > i dont really believe in "knowing BASIC / C / perl / Fortran / etc.
> > your mind forever":
> > *
> > *
> > * https://www.perl.com/pub/2007/12/06/soto-11.html/
> >> That said, I already admitted I need to try to make myself fluent in the
> >> ophidian language. Because as much as it pisses me off, there is one
> >> Python can provide that Perl really just can’t anymore (especially me
> >> people who need baby talk Moose garbage hand-holding have convinced
> >> everyone that people who *don’t* aren’t as good somehow):
> >> An income
> > good luck but note stand-up comedy here -
> >> —
> >> Dodger
> > --
> > Shlomi Fish https://www.shlomifish.org/
> > My Aphorisms - https://www.shlomifish.org/humour.html
> > I don’t believe in Astrology, because I’m a Taurus, and Tauri never
> > in
> > Astrology. — Source unknown
> > Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post -
> https://shlom.in/reply .
> > _______________________________________________
> > SanFrancisco-pm mailing list
> > SanFrancisco-pm at pm.org
> > https://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/sanfrancisco-pm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the SanFrancisco-pm