Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Perl 6? Yeah, right.Perl 6? Yeah, right.Posted Sep 24, 2006 3:21 UTC (Sun) by chromatic (guest, #26207)In reply to: Perl 6? Yeah, right. by fergal Parent article: Perl 6? Yeah, right.
Isn't the question "How productive is a good programmer with the language?" much more interesting and insightful than "How badly can a barely-trained monkey write code?"
It's not as if there's a shortage of barely-trained monkeys, nor a limit to the damage they can do with *any* language.
(Log in to post comments)
Perl 6? Yeah, right. Posted Sep 24, 2006 5:42 UTC (Sun) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] Isn't the question "How productive is a good programmer with the language?" much more interesting and insightful than "How badly can a barely-trained monkey write code?" It certainly is but I'm not talking about badly trained monkeys. The more syntax and features you put in the language, the more I have to learn before I can read "average" code. By "average" I don't mean quality, I just mean the code I'm likely to run across reading mailing lists, articles or CPAN code. Larry likens Perl 5 to a natural language and talks about how long it takes to become fluent. With Perl 6 it will take longer. I haven't seen the killer features that would make me want to bother to do all that again.
Perl 6? Yeah, right. Posted Sep 28, 2006 11:41 UTC (Thu) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link] Indeed, frankly in my opinion Perl baroque style is its downfall..Perl5 is bad and Perl6 will be even worse (still IMHO of course).
Ruby or Python are much easier to learn..
|
|||||||||||||