anonymous troll wrote:
> John Porter wrote:
> > Unfortunately, to the two optimizations are mostly disjoint.
>
> this is completely false when applied to real programming languages.
Oh?
> => example 1: php
> . less cryptic (but more verbose)
more verbose == not optimized for the expert.
> . tight integration to databases (mySQL)
Convenient for some people, but bothersome for experts,
who tend to like generality.
> => example 2: ruby
=> Perplexed by its own idiosyncracies that in the end make it
no more attractive than Perl.
> => now more popular than python in its native japan
> => now in us and europe - where it will displace perl and python... ;-)
Even if true, what does it say about what experts like in their
languages? (Hint: nothing.)
> you need a new language designer(s), not tired-out god-figures.
If Perl succeeds or fails, it won't be on the basis of the
deification of its creator. That's simply a (stupid) strawman argument.
Can't you do any better? It's getting rather tired.
--
John Porter
