Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: D Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:55:40 +0100 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <77840736-c143-e896-5da0-d0afae4915ed@example.net> References: <6iKdnTQOKNh6AqD6nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@earthlink.com> <871pz4osys.fsf@comcast.net.invalid> <1b166410-ecc1-f9e5-7218-cde9618f4686@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="4043573"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="w/4CleFT0XZ6XfSuRJzIySLIA6ECskkHxKUAYDZM66M"; X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:61339 On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, rbowman wrote: > On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 22:07:40 +0100, D wrote: > >> I dabbled a bit in perl out of curiosity and I find the following two >> points to be in its favour: >> >> 1. Backwards compatibility. Much better than python. > > Well, that's true. Looking over at the bookshelf I see 'Programming the > Perl DBI' from 2000. It probably works just as well in 5.40.0 as it did in > 5.6.0. > > https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/programming-the-perl/1565926994/ > > There isn't a newer version. That's remarkable for close to 25 years. Most > of my other books from 2000 are suitable for propping up mismatched table > legs. > > I did appreciate the concept of a uniform DBI with specific DBDs in the > back end. > >> 2. The built in documentation. > > Python offers a lot of built in documentation, assuming the modules follow > the PEP guidelines. The problem with python is the quality of the ecosystem and the 2 to 3 shift. I find the quality of python libraries lower than in perl. But I imagine that is due to there simply being more of them, and that it is a "live" language. Perhaps I found the quality better in perl, since the libraries that remain are old and mature.