Re: Full Screen Interfaces. I tend to like them if I don't have a lot of screen. If my screen is my 800x600 laptop, then my favorite interface is a full-screen terminal window in which I run emacs on the server. Nice.
On the 1600x1200 destop, though, this doesn't work as nicely. So I like the screen split. Mozilla on the right, emacs on the left.
The local Time-Picayunne has finally done a write-up on the Slidell Spammer, Ronnie Scelson.
I know that my prefered language, Perl, is Comp. Sci.'s favorite whipping boy. It causes shame and derision, to the point that programmers will take up almost any other language just to avoid the humiliation. But, as my friend, Jeff, said of his attempt at Python, What's the point? What can I do with this that I can't do with Perl?
When people offer their Perl vs. X arguments, it can be good to look at them to see what they are really saying. Most of the time, a programmer has already decided which language he likes (based on various arguments, how he learned programming, etc.) and the arguments he's putting forth don't really what they say at face value.
For instance take Paul Baranowski's arguments in Python vs. Perl:
| Claim | Comment |
|---|---|
| Perl doesn't have exceptions. | Perl does have exceptions, but some people are not satisfied with them. Non-core libraries are avaiable that solve the problem, though. are available. |
| The code relies heavily on side effects. | And this is a bad thing, because, why exactly? The side
effects he is talking about are the pronouns Perl uses
($_ is filled in by the runtime), die
acting differently because its DWIM.
|
| There are too many ways to do the same thing in Perl. | This argument is used a lot but what does it really mean? If you are writing your own code, it means nothing. If you are reading someone elses code, then it usually means nothing. If you are reading an uber-hacker's code, then this may bite you. If you are writing your own code: write the way you want. So what if you could write it more than one way? Write the way you are comfortable.</p>If you are reading someone else's code, chances are they've written it in a way that is trivially understandable. Unless they are going for job security (pdf) or they're an uber-hacker. But let's face it. You can write obfuscated code in any language. |
| Unnecessary difference between data types | It's not clear what is meant by "unnecessary". To a purist, making a scalar variable's name look different than a function's name might be uneccessary, but it stems from the philosophy that "different things should look different" (No. 15 on MacLennan's Language Principles). |
| Perl was not made for multithreading | And yet, it has threads. |
Now really, this is an unfair rebuttal. Paul says that Perl vs. Python isn't a fair fight because Perl is 5 years older than Python. By that same arguement, Lisp should be absolutly terrible, since the first design for it was developed over 30 years before Python. I say this is an unfair rebuttal because Paul apparently hasn't really used Perl. And I don't really expect him to read this and say "Gee, I was so wrong, I'll start using Perl immediately." If he wants to pick on Perl, he's got good company. All I ask is that he make his criticism informed.
Perl isn't for everyone. If you like ivory towers, you shouldn't use Perl. It's far too organic. It has grown much more than it has been designed. But plenty of people find it useful. SpamAssassin, slashdot, Request Tracker and scientists involved in bioinformatics all use perl. Certainly one of these uses is more serious then shell scripting.