>On Sat, Feb 17 2001 09:04:54 -0800, Simon Cozens wrote:
>
>On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 08:02:08AM -0800, yaphet jones wrote:
>> the tchrist (christiansen) said it best, when he described perl5:
>>...an "expert-friendly" language...
>
>And he was right. Perl is *not* deliberately dumbed down, because,
>unlike other languages, we do *not* assume our users are dumb.
despite all "cyber" appearances to the contrary, i'm one of you - but who?
i thought that we assume our users are *lazy* - perl creates meaningless
compiler spoon-feeding work for the programmer that smarter languages
avoid. some languages - most notably java and the 'c' family create even
more useless work (what's your guess, 2x-10x when compared to perl?!).
add on the irredeemably ugly and cryptic syntax (you need to be smart...)
so i agree 100%. perl programmers are often the most intrinsically bright
stars shining in the programming universe - if not, they couldn't use
perl!
the world desperately needs *more* programmers, if for no other reason
to rewrite, replace, or maintain the perl code that's polluting
cyberspace!
perl is *not* the answer. it was for a time, but no more: it's the wrong
way.
>That's not to say it's offensively smart, either. :)
but it is offensive...and it's damaging the progressive improvement in the
application of computer programming (scripting, if you will...) to
business.
sometimes organisms evolve into supremacy over their ecological niche,
just to find that their niche evolves into irrelevance or is replaced
entirely.
cheers!
yaphet
heretics of perl;
q&a - what's the biologist term for "stable"?
hint - ask jhi
--
