At 12:45 PM 5/16/01 -0400, Adam Turoff wrote: >On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 08:57:42AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote: > > It doesn't look to me like the amount of Perl one needs to know to achieve > > a given level of productivity is increasing in volume or complexity at > > all. What it looks like to me is that there are additional features being > > added which enable one to achieve greater levels of productivity and > > performance if one wants to learn them. > >Who *wants* to be unproductive? ENONSEQUITUR. I'm saying that the current ratio of productivity to (learning) investment is undisturbed. Adding features which allow greater productivity with greater investment is a natural progression. Not taking advantage of them does not disturb one's current level of productivity one whit. -- Peter Scott Pacific Systems Design Technologies http://www.perldebugged.com
- perlsmall (was Re: Perl, the new generation) Michael G Schwern
- Re: Perl, the new generation Edward Peschko
- Re: Perl, the new generation Nathan Torkington
- Re: Perl, the new generation Mike Lacey
- Re: Perl, the new generation Adam Turoff
- Re: Perl, the new generation Dan Sugalski
- RE: Perl, the new generation David Grove
- Re: Perl, the new generation Stephen P. Potter
- RE: Perl, the new generation Peter Scott
- Re: Perl, the new generation Adam Turoff
- Re: Perl, the new generation Peter Scott
- Re: Perl, the new generation Dave Storrs
- RE: Perl, the new generation Dave Storrs
- RE: Perl, the new generation David Grove
- Re: Perl, the new generation Simon Cozens
- Re: Perl, the new generation Dave Storrs
- Re: Perl, the new generation Nathan Torkington
- Re: Perl, the new generation Bryan C. Warnock
- Re: Perl, the new generation Dan Sugalski
- Re: Perl, the new generation Randal L. Schwartz
- Re: Perl, the new generation Nathan Torkington