Larry Wall on Perl 6 265
Nate writes "Linux Format magazine has an interview with Larry Wall, the eccentric linguist and coder behind Perl. Larry discusses some of the new Perl 6 features ready to rock the world, and if you're not planning to move from Perl 5.8, he has a few musings on that too."
Why I like Larry Wall. (Score:5, Insightful)
I like that.
Re:Perl is a trainwreck - retire it (Score:3, Insightful)
For relatively simple cgi tasks, Perl is still, by far, my favorite:
Now maybe I'm just saying this because I'm an old dog and haven't learned the latest tricks. But I think it's way too early to be writing Perl's obituary. It has saved my butt many times and continues to do so today.
-Eric
Re:Grammatical mutability... (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone feels that using the full scope of Perl results in messiness, they aren't forced by any means to use that full scope. There are many Perl coders who limit themselves to the "C subset" of Perl. But unlike certain other unnamed languages, Perl doesn't try to play the role of parent in telling you what you can and can't express so those who are more comfortable with a wider breadth of linguistic forms can take advantage of that and make code that is, in a word, elegant.
As for the syntactical ugliness (the $, @, %, etc.) that most people are referring to when they say that Perl is ugly... well, you learn to live with that pretty early on. But beneath that superficial ugliness lies a sparkling beautiful language.
Larry Wall - a linguist? (Score:1, Insightful)
I hear this assertion cropping up all the time -- "Larry wall, a linguist", "with a background in linguistics", "a trained linguist" -- but haven't been able to research this further. So perhaps a fellow /.er can shed light on this question:
Where did he receive his training in linguistics? What was this training about, what did he specialize in? Does he hold a degree in linguistics? Does he have any peer-reviewed publications on linguistics?
I'm asking because this is mentioned nowhere. The university he calls his alma mater on his home page (Seattle Pacific University) offers courses in linguistics (in the College of Arts and Sciences, Forein Languages and Literature department), but it seems to be offered as a minor subject, not as a major.
So: Why does Larry Wall call himself a linguist?
Thanks for helping with this question.
Regards, Felix.
Re:Real hackers use Python. (Score:5, Insightful)
> I stopped reading and tossed the book on my bookshelf on a shelf full of unused & unloved technical manuals.
One of the best things a programmer can do is try different languages. Try lisp, sql, haskell. Play with xml and yaml. Compare J2EE to Ruby on Rails. Try a language that doesn't use ALGOL-inherited code blocks. Just like an 80s ACM article said, the single best way to evaluate a programmer is by the number of languages they're fluent in.
At the end of the day Python's indentation causes a few programs, but seems to solve more. It makes it hard to share source code via email. It rules out the use of tabs. I can live with those limits. On the flip side it helps reinforce readable code. That's a very good thing - and consistent with the fundamental philosophy of the lanuage: the code must be easy to maintain.
But if you really can't get your head around that, then try Ruby. Like Python it's a well-designed, easily maintained language with a great community and future.
Re:Terrorists caused book sales to plunge (Score:4, Insightful)
Well actually that's apparently exactly what happened. Maybe not just to computer books, it could have been more of a global . o 0 { I'm not buying anything except bottled water, canned food and shotgun shells } but it certainly had a hugh effect on computer book sales. Part of this was happening anyway, it -seemed- when the burst of the .com bubble stifled innovation and there just wasn't anything that new that people needed a book to learn. While that was true to a point what really was going on was that people needed to learn different things and no publisher was providing it (and largely still don't today). In overly simplistic terms, the bulk market shifted from how do I use my computer to how do I accomplish "x" with my computer. It's also important to realize that the "x" changed too. Most publishers on a whole still don't get this (some do, but the industry on a whole is very reactive so change is slow). O'Reilly has been burned by this just like everyone else. While there is still a good market for well written programming books which has traditionally been O'Reilly's market (and has saved it many times since it traditionally avoided the fickleness of end user consumers) even that is changing. Right now to try to save themselves most Publishers are just attempting to do the same thing by making superficial changes in how books look and selling this facelift as the next big thing ("Head First Java" anyone?) The problem is these books still teach the same old topics which have diminishing interest. It's not the approach... Heck.. IMO "The C Programming language" by K.&R. is still the best computer book out there and much of that has to do with the simple presentation of the material without all the pretense and gimmicks of today. The problem isn't the approach, it's the topic.
But a babble off on some rant... the fact remains 9/11 hurt the book industry along with everyone else, the computer book industry took an extra hit because when people started to buy stuff again they realized that none of the computer books on the shelves dealt with the topics they wanted to learn.
Re:Why I like Larry Wall. (Score:4, Insightful)
The freedom of the language has nothing to do with its syntactic cleanliness. I don't know what makes you say Python dictates how you express yourself. If you had said Java instead I might agree more. Python is very clean and simple, but dictates very little at a higher level.
Re:Hard Enough to Understand (Score:4, Insightful)
Then again, it could also cause some of the issues LISP macros can cause. Powerful language features aren't inherently bad things, but powerful language features in the hands of unskilled users are dangerous things, so it depends a lot on who you're trying to help.
Re:I migrated from Perl 5.8 (Score:3, Insightful)
It's sad that people have trouble with Perl's syntax because hiding behind the scary surface is a brilliant sort of orderly chaos that's unlike any language I've ever used. In terms of Perl, as a language, I think I've begun to enter a class of 'Perl Mastery', and there are still things I find out about every now and then that the language does that are just utterly fantastic.
It is possible to write clean and understandable Perl code. What it takes is simply clean and understandable programming. A guy once told me, referring to Java, "You can take shitty programmers and put them in the language, and despite all of its efforts to stop them, they will write shitty code." Most people writing Perl are still basically writing C code... and that's when you really do miss what Perl has to offer.
Re:Real hackers use Python. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:About Larry (Score:4, Insightful)
But then you have this moment where something in your head *clicks* and then you understand... and after that it is beautiful and logical and makes infinite sense.
It really was better than acid...
Re:Real hackers use Python. (Score:3, Insightful)
Any editor worth its salt has a python mode/plugin, and in that there are convenient functions for "shift left" and "shift right" which will move the selected text one indentation level left or right. Cut and paste your code, then just shift it to the indentation level required. It really isn't that hard.
Jedidiah.
Re:Grammatical mutability... (Score:3, Insightful)
> many Perl coders who limit themselves to the "C subset" of Perl. But unlike certain other unnamed languages, Perl doesn't try to
> play the role of parent in telling you what you can and can't express so those who are more comfortable with a wider breadth of
> linguistic forms can take advantage of that and make code that is, in a word, elegant.
Hmmm, I find that there is more elegance in a solution that uses just a few components consistently and well, than in a solution that has a vast number of components in a variety of ways.
'One way to do things' is language philosophy that may occasionally increase implementation costs, but usually shrinks learning curves and maintenance costs. That's usually a good deal.
Re:Perl 6 (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why I like Larry Wall. (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're a decent programmer and you have productive experience in a couple of languages already, it's likely you can pick up enough of a new language (especially an Algol-derivative) in a week or two and be productive. Perl and Python and Ruby and PHP aren't too different in that sense.
If you're not a programmer, it really doesn't matter how the language looks. Not only do you have to learn the purpose of the system and the design of the code already, you have to learn how to program. If your manager threw you into that point, not knowing the language is just one of many, many problems.