Re: Perl vs Python vs ....
> > I'm sure C and Assembler fit "cryptic" too. Just think how much further
> > advanced the computer industry would be if neither of those had ever been
> > invented.
>
> And how much further would the industry be, if C had been typesafe (or
> if some other, typesafe language had been used)? The expertise in
> language design existed at the time, but C didn't have it.
There were typesafe languages in the time of C: Pascal, Modula, etc.
Where did they go? They didn't go anywhere because they aren't useful
in real applications. Have you ever tried to write a dynamic skip-list
in pascal?
> And yet, C was adopted as a major standard - because the people who knew
> better, didn't bother to speak up.
No. It became a major standard because it does the job. C++ is the same
way, and so is Perl. They're not the prettiest, but they do the job in
an easy and efficient way.
> That's not to say that a lot hasn't been accomplished in C - obviously.
> But we could have done a lot more, if such a simple thing hadn't been
> put off until ANSI. Also, the code I maintained on my first job,
> probably would've been a LOT cleaner - many of you are probably in the
> same boat. I really hated roaming around fixing somebody else's stray
> pointer references.
True, but it's more likely that much of the existing code would not have
been written at all or would not be as functional. Maintaing poorly
structured code is hard, but not as hard as maintaining code that was
kludged to get around limitations in the language.
> > As for the truth of your comment... Language syntax and symantics have
> > little to do with a language's success; it's how easy it is to write
> > useful programs with. An operating system's success is due primarily
> > to the amount of software available for it. (Don't believe me? Look
> > at MS-Dos!)
>
> Yes, yes, yes, and No, no, no.
>
> A language's success is typically 95% who backs it, and 5% how good it
> is. With the masses, that is.
I disagree here, and MS-Dos is a great example. It's not who backs it,
but what. Dos was backed by tonnes of software. That's why it's still
here. Dos does the job; or did until fairly recently.
> However, for a group that knows what it's doing, it should be 5% who
> backs it, and 95% how good it is. So it -should- be for debian. The
> debian project is in a more than adequate position, to set a
> more-positive direction for the unix industry.
Yes! Now define "good". Good is how useful it is, not how how nicely
it's designed. Perl _is_ useful. Sure, there are other things, even
better things, in many ways. But perl is a standard and following a
standard is also "good" in many ways. I provides for a lot, even if it
lacks in others.
Don't get me wrong here, I abhor doing things because "that's the way
they've always been done"! Right now, the pros of perl (good user base,
almost standard on all unicies, powerful) outweighs the pros of a
better language that fewer people know and isn't as common. The cost
of changing must also be weighed and affects the decision even if it
alone is not sufficient reason.
> One way to do that, is to hang onto /bin/sh until something like guile
> is ready.
Guile is a neat idea, I'll admit. It's almost like a high-level I-code
interpreter, except the I-code is scheme. Done correctly, it could make
for a fairly painless conversion and still allow people to write in the
language of their choice, changing to better ones at their own pace. It's
a while out, though.
Still, "good, now" is better than "perfect, later".
> Another way to do that, is to move beyond perl to something like python
> or ML (metalanguage) - right now. It wouldn't take much at all.
But what is the cost of that move? How many people have to be retrained?
What are the advantages? Do the advantages outweigh the costs?
> Once the inertia's there, it's hard to change it. In fact, many people
> will become angry with you if you do. But it's often very worthwhile to
> take a step back, and look at the long-term ramifications of a decision.
People, in general, hate change. I personally have nothing against
changing the supported base language if I thought it would gain something
significant. Convince me of that and I'll argue your side without
hesitation.
Brian
( bcwhite@verisim.com )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.
Reply to: