>>> Alan Connor wrote:

AC> For that matter, there are more computers with C compilers on them than
AC> have perl...
AC> It is quite amusing to watch the perl fanatics try to insert feet they don't
AC> even have in their big mouths.

It seems to me that your hate to Perl is reason for a correcting course
with your psychoanalyst.
It's not pleasing to see mad spittals on your mouth.

In spite of all Perl problems, it is highly convenient for the wide class
of tasks, and it is one of representatives of language class "how shell
could look if designed not through asshole".


-netch-

>>> Roger Marquis wrote:

RM> That hasn't been my experience. Perl can be portable if you don't
RM> use modules, and all your systems have the same base version.

What's the problem with modules? Do you consider Perl4 here?

RM> With
RM> version 6 coming out and many sites still using 4 that's a lot of
RM> ifs. These are just a couple of the reasons why FreeBSD has taken
RM> perl out of it's base distribution and put it into the optional
RM> ports collection.
RM> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=200205090931.g499VgjV094375_grimreaper.g rondar.org%40ns.sol.net&rnum=9&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dfreebsd%2Bperl%2Bport%26hl%3Den%26lr% 3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D200205090931.g499VgjV094375_grimreaper. grondar.org%40ns.sol.net%26rnum%3D9>

Yes, but almost any opensource program wants automake, automake wants Perl,
and an average FreeBSD5 system begin to carry Perl extremely quickly.
Excluding from base system was only excluding from base system, not
anything more. This is in the same way as average system immediately
begin to carry bash2 installed, because too much users and admins want it...

RM> I find Bourne shell easier to write portable code in.

"portable code" is mainly anthonym for "correct code" in this context.

cat >1.sh <<\EOF
#!/bin/sh
PROG=/usr/bin/foo
PARAMS="-a1 -b2 -f$1"
$PROG $PARAMS
EOF

sh 1.sh /etc/motd ## all correct
sh 1.sh /var/tmp/a\ b ## oops! what's happened in script???

In this small example it seems to be trivial to fix it, but not in real
cases. Especially this is huge problem in makefiles (which was designed
using the same brain-damaged concept as in Bourne shell).
As result, having any option or path with shell metacharacters is the
reliable way to put overheated pan under one's own back.
In Perl, system($prog,@args) have no such problems ever.

RM> I just wish perl had a better OO syntax, secure memory management,
RM> a more readable and maintainable syntax (no spaceship operators),
RM> was better able to distinguish between 0 and null, had a decent set
RM> of sort options (-M for example), and ...

Repeating popular phrase, "Perl sucks, but it sucks less for some tasks".
And the problem is to determine distinctive criteria for such tasks.


-netch-

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 04:30:12 +0000 (UTC), Charles Demas <demas@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
>
> In article <mMD_a.3876$Nf3.190@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
> Alan Connor <alanconnor@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:23:37 GMT, Randal L. Schwartz
>><merlyn@stonehenge.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> "Alan" == Alan Connor <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxx> writes:
>>>
>>>Alan> As for comparing the portability of sh scripts and perl scripts,
>>>Alan> well, there just isn't any comparison, is there?
>>>
>>> Finally, something we can agree on! Perl is far more portable.
>>> Glad for you to notice.
>>>
>>
>>That is an utterly ignorant statement.
>>
>>But one hardly expects otherwise from perl fanatics.
>
> Randal isn't a Perl fanatic, he's a Perl Promoter/Lecturer/Author.
>
> Capitalism is such a wonderful system for bringing out the true
> altuism in man.
>
>:-)
>
>
> Chuck Demas
>

ROTFL

Yes, a yuppy language for a yuppy, which is to say: economic fundamentalist.
The reason they make such 'good' lawyers is that they can rationalize anything.
Perl is a real and useful language, but efficient it isn't, and a superior
substitute for the shell and C, et al, it isn't.
And at least I know he isn't an idiot, but simply a typical merchant.
No perl on my box, EVER.

I can C clearly now, and am having a bash tonight to celebrate :-)


Alan C