[sf-perl] Stack Overflow Blog: "Why Perl is still relevant in 2022"

Mon Jul 11 11:38:46 PDT 2022

> Or do you mean the person who wrote the article in the OP

Yes, precisely.  I probably should've attached my comment to Yary's.

On 7/11/22, Sean Dodger Cannon <el.dodgero at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>> compatibility.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>> indicated
>> >> 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
>> restrict
>> >> 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
>> that
>> >> rubbish are somehow less talented or capable because it makes it
>> >> harder
>> to
>> >> 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
>> to
>> >> “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.
>> Y’know?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Moo provides enough hooks to write dirtier code if needed. And there's
>> also
>> > 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
>> lot:
>> >> >
>> >> > *
>> https://www.shlomifish.org/meta/FAQ/thought_you_were_a_Perl_guy.xhtml
>> >> >
>> >> > Python is very easy to learn, and some people were able to tweak py
>> code
>> >> > 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
>> a
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> A perl programmer can pick up java, javascript, C, C++, C#, Objective
>> >> C,
>> >> 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
>> scratch.
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> languages,
>> >> if constants exist at all the term means an immutable variable. A
>> variable
>> >> that can only by changed by re-assigning it (effectively overloading
>> it).
>> >> 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
>> python
>> >> that aren’t remedial for an advanced programmer of anything else.
>> >> Throw
>> in
>> >> 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
>> through
>> >> 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
>> constant
>> >> 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
>> concept
>> >> 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
>> know
>> >> 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
>> what
>> >> “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
>> learn
>> >> a
>> >> language but you’re stuck because you don’t know 1 or 1 of the ABCs,
>> even
>> >> though you know the rest. Quite a þ in the side, truly.
>> >>
>> >> Anyway, literally anyone who isn’t special needs can tweak python *or
>> any
>> >> 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.
>> So
>> >> of course that’s true.
>> >>
>> >
>> > i dont really believe in "knowing BASIC / C / perl / Fortran / etc.
>> cripples
>> > your mind forever":
>> >
>> > *
>> >
>> https://www.shlomifish.org/humour/fortunes/show.cgi?id=quora-learning-to-drum-at-65
>> >
>> > *
>> >
>> https://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/philosophy/putting-cards-on-the-table-2019-2020/indiv-nodes/people-can-change.xhtml
>> >
>> > * 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
>> thing
>> >> Python can provide that Perl really just can’t anymore (especially me
>> that
>> >> 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 -
>> >
>> https://www.shlomifish.org/humour/Buffy/A-Few-Good-Slayers/indiv-nodes/prospects-of-fighting-the-pseudo-vampires.xhtml
>> >
>> >> —
>> >> 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
>> believe
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> S. Cannon
>