> It's not so much that Perl shouldn't have data structures or modules. > I think what Stephen is saying (and he's not the only one) is that > the bare minimum amount of Perl you *must* know to be productive > is increasing. Either that, or we're giving the impression that > it's increasing. Many people don't want to get bogged down in how > the details of Unicode, upperclass level CS topics or Perl's unique > syntactical peculiarities to parse a damn log file (or find and > use a CPAN module that does it). 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. -- Peter Scott Pacific Systems Design Technologies http://www.perldebugged.com
- Re: Perl, the new generation Michael G Schwern
- Re: Perl, the new generation Stephen P. Potter
- 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