When people hear about a new language, and theyââ¬â¢re told that itââ¬â¢s a scripting language, not only donââ¬â¢t they treat it seriously, they insist on emulating a Turing tar pit in it. They call system() and pass it incomprehensible 300-character pipelines. They write everything in one big bulk, without using functions or classes. They ignore data structures and regular expressions and call awk when they need them the way theyââ¬â¢d do in a shell script. From Python or Ruby or Perl. This is how you write scripts, you know.
— Yossi Kreinin, Fun at the Turing tar pit
I promise never again to mention how blepharitic Perl 5's nested dereferencing syntax can be if MakeMaker just goes away now.
Now it starts to get creepy. This is the third or fourth time in a row that I read an article and thought "Huh, I bet chromatic has something to say about that," and a few days later I find a link here. The community seems to work if I can guess if people are interested in comments, even if I don't know them really (The people, not the comments)
Still, I enjoy the read most of the time
creepy, or....conspiracy?
slanning on 2008-01-30T21:23:49
Maybe chromatic writes the other articles so that he can link to them from here.
Re:Yosef's deconstruction of C++ FAQ Lite
chromatic on 2008-02-11T18:30:37
I'd like to see a Perl FAQ as accurate as that C++ FAQ. If one existed, I would submit the whole ref/reftype/isa debacle (the one that almost completely goes away if you use DOES() in 5.10 with autobox installed).