Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #256611 > unrolled thread

Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? coreyh@free.fr - 2023-04-02 11:00 +0200
    Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-04-02 11:10 +0200
    Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-02 11:30 +0200
      Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com> - 2023-04-02 11:50 +0200
      Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-03 00:20 +0200
      Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Steve Sobol <steve@LobosStudios.com> - 2023-04-03 00:20 +0200
    Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2023-04-02 18:40 +0200
      Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-04-02 18:40 +0200
        Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-02 19:20 +0200
          Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-04-02 20:50 +0200
            Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-02 21:00 +0200
              Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-02 21:20 +0200
                Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-02 21:30 +0200
                Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? debian-user@howorth.org.uk - 2023-04-03 00:00 +0200
                  Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-03 00:10 +0200
                  Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Steve Sobol <steve@LobosStudios.com> - 2023-04-03 01:10 +0200
                  Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2023-04-03 04:30 +0200
                    Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-03 05:50 +0200
                      Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-04-03 06:50 +0200
                    Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-04-03 06:50 +0200
                Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-04-03 06:40 +0200
                  Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-03 11:30 +0200
                  Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-08 15:00 +0200
              Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-04-02 21:20 +0200
                Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2023-04-03 02:00 +0200
                  Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Ken Young <ken@highwinds.cloud> - 2023-04-03 02:30 +0200
          Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2023-04-03 01:40 +0200
      Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-02 19:20 +0200
        Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? debian-user@howorth.org.uk - 2023-04-02 22:10 +0200
          Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-02 22:40 +0200
            Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2023-04-02 23:20 +0200
          Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-02 22:50 +0200
        Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2023-04-03 01:20 +0200
      Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Michel Verdier <mv524@free.fr> - 2023-04-02 22:50 +0200
        Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> - 2023-04-02 23:10 +0200
          Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? coreyh@free.fr - 2023-04-03 06:30 +0200
            Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-04-03 06:50 +0200
              Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? coreyh@free.fr - 2023-04-03 07:00 +0200
            Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Stanislav Vlasov <stanislav.v.v@gmail.com> - 2023-04-03 08:50 +0200
              Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2023-04-03 09:30 +0200
                Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Michel Verdier <mv524@free.fr> - 2023-04-03 10:40 +0200
                Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Stanislav Vlasov <stanislav.v.v@gmail.com> - 2023-04-03 11:20 +0200
                  Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Michel Verdier <mv524@free.fr> - 2023-04-03 13:00 +0200
              Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2023-04-03 15:40 +0200
                Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Stanislav Vlasov <stanislav.v.v@gmail.com> - 2023-04-03 18:50 +0200
        Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Oliver Schoede <oliver.schode@online.de> - 2023-04-02 23:40 +0200
          Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-03 00:10 +0200
          Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2023-04-03 03:30 +0200
          Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-04-03 05:00 +0200
            Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-03 05:50 +0200
              Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-04-03 06:20 +0200
                Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-04 02:20 +0200
                  Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? local10 <local10@tutanota.com> - 2023-04-04 05:40 +0200
                    Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-04-04 15:50 +0200
                      Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? local10 <local10@tutanota.com> - 2023-04-05 00:50 +0200
        Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com> - 2023-04-03 00:10 +0200
          Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-03 00:20 +0200
      Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2023-04-03 01:20 +0200
        Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-03 02:20 +0200
          Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de> - 2023-04-03 23:30 +0200
            Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Joel Roth <joelz@pobox.com> - 2023-04-04 00:30 +0200
              Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-08 16:20 +0200
            Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-08 16:00 +0200
              Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2023-04-08 16:30 +0200
                Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-04-08 18:30 +0200
                  Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-08 18:40 +0200
                    Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-08 18:50 +0200
                  Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2023-04-08 19:50 +0200
                    Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2023-04-08 21:20 +0200
                      Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-08 21:40 +0200
                  Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2023-04-09 05:40 +0200
          Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Tom Dial <tddial@comcast.net> - 2023-04-04 04:00 +0200
            Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-08 16:20 +0200
              Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2023-04-08 16:50 +0200
                Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-08 17:10 +0200
              Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Tom Dial <tddial@comcast.net> - 2023-04-11 04:20 +0200
            Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-08 16:30 +0200
          Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2023-04-05 04:10 +0200
            Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-08 16:50 +0200
    Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2023-04-02 23:20 +0200
      Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? ghe2001 <ghe2001@protonmail.com> - 2023-04-02 23:40 +0200
        Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-02 23:50 +0200
          Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Michel Verdier <mv524@free.fr> - 2023-04-03 00:10 +0200
      Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-02 23:40 +0200
        Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2023-04-03 05:50 +0200
          Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-03 20:00 +0200
            Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-03 20:20 +0200
              Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Michel Verdier <mv524@free.fr> - 2023-04-03 20:50 +0200
                Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-08 15:20 +0200
            Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Michel Verdier <mv524@free.fr> - 2023-04-03 20:20 +0200
            Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-04-03 20:50 +0200
              Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Michel Verdier <mv524@free.fr> - 2023-04-03 21:00 +0200
                Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2023-04-08 05:50 +0200
                  Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-08 15:40 +0200
              Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2023-04-03 22:00 +0200
                Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-04-03 22:10 +0200
                  Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2023-04-03 22:30 +0200
                  Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Michael <ml@hemathor.de> - 2023-04-05 12:00 +0200
                    Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Michael <ml@hemathor.de> - 2023-04-05 12:00 +0200
                    Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2023-04-05 12:10 +0200
                      Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-04-05 13:30 +0200
                        Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-04-05 13:40 +0200
                          Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2023-04-05 14:00 +0200
                          Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-04-05 14:20 +0200
                        Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2023-04-05 13:40 +0200
            Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2023-04-03 21:50 +0200
    Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-04-03 05:10 +0200
    Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2023-04-03 18:40 +0200
      Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Stanislav Vlasov <stanislav.v.v@gmail.com> - 2023-04-03 19:10 +0200
        Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Michel Verdier <mv524@free.fr> - 2023-04-03 19:40 +0200
          Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-03 19:50 +0200
      Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? debian-user@howorth.org.uk - 2023-04-03 19:20 +0200
        Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-03 19:50 +0200
      Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-03 19:40 +0200
        Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2023-04-03 20:30 +0200
          Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-08 15:10 +0200
            Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-04-08 15:20 +0200
              Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-08 15:30 +0200
          Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-04-09 00:20 +0200
            Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? conover@panix.com (John Conover) - 2023-04-09 05:00 +0200
        Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2023-04-04 15:40 +0200
          Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2023-04-04 15:50 +0200
            Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2023-04-04 16:40 +0200
              Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? debian-user@howorth.org.uk - 2023-04-04 19:40 +0200
                Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-04-04 19:40 +0200
                  Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2023-04-04 20:00 +0200
                  Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2023-04-04 21:00 +0200
                    Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-08 16:40 +0200
                  Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-08 16:40 +0200
                Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-08 16:50 +0200
            Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-08 17:00 +0200
          Re: Is perl still the No.1 language for sysadmin? Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2023-04-08 17:10 +0200
      Computer anthropology and language wars [was: Is perl still the No.1  language for sysadmin?] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-04-03 19:50 +0200

Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7  Next page →

#256715

Can't resist adding my 2c

On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 11:20:26PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Hallo,
> * Emanuel Berg [Mon, Apr 03 2023, 02:15:10AM]:
> 
> > > The reason Perl gives you more than one way to do anything
> > > is this: I truly believe computer programmers want to be
> > > creative, and they may have many different reasons for
> > > wanting to write code a particular way. What you choose to
> > > optimize for is your concern, not mine. I just supply the
> > > paint—you paint the picture.
> >
> > I agree but I think maybe the success of Python, and its
> > development speed, is actually because of some of that
> > rigidness, yes, including the whitespace lack of freedom.

Google adopting python early on has something to do with this, too.  

> I don't think so, Sir! Python has certain advantages but the "meaningful
> whitespace" is IMHO not one of them.
> 
> That said, I have been an active Perl user ~20y ago and for the last
> couple of years slowly converting to Python for scripting purposes,
> still using Perl here and there.
> 
> Therefore, my recent impressions and reflections:
> 
> Perl:
> PRO:
> - still excels on creating quick solutions in a one-liner for many
>   purposes where string/text input/output and some generic algorithms
>   count
> - great cross-platform availability as long as you don't need CPAN, even
>   part of Git-Bash and therefore an "obligatory" component

I'm surprised to hear this. What is not cross-platform about CPAN?

> - IMHO clean lifecycle of variables. Means, you can set "strict" and
>   then be sure that you manage your variables correctly, without much
>   risk of strange runtime effects

I'm not sure about the connection with managing variable lifecycles,
perhaps you can explain.

This pragma *does* catch a class of typos that python is vulnerable to.
Perhaps python IDEs take care of this. 

> - flexibility in statement writing (although making them sometimes
>   looking strange and requiring more brackets than you initially wanted)
> - a "friendly" API for users who just came from Bash or AWK scripting,
>   many things would look familiar and need only minor adaption,
>   especially when one knows "computer science" and understands what is
>   going on underneath anyway

For writing any code it helps if you understand the underlying concepts. 

> NEUTRAL:
> - true threads are possible... the last time I tried that was great but
>   unstable, but I think they have fixed it in a rewrite a while ago (not
>   tried again for years, cannot tell for sure)

> CONTRA:
> - OOP is awkward, has always been, it just sucks

Well, it doesn't make much point to discuss it here, but
I'll note that there are legitimate criticisms and solutions
for those who want them. 

Also, I seem to recall perl borrowed its OO design 
from python. Checking... yes.

"I don’t really know much about Python. I only stole its
object system for Perl 5. I have since repented."(*1)

There is a new object system being cooked up, based on
decades of experience with OO in perl and other languages. 

There is already more than enough OO goodness for me to
get my work done :-)

> - still sucky when it comes to complex data structures

Well, maybe this is not the place to discuss it, but I'm
curious if it's the syntax or the implementation that
bothers you. 

> - ECO system unfortunately slowly fading away

I would say the most highly depended-on distributions in
CPAN are well maintained and new contributions continue.
Sometimes I encounter a project (like Prima, a cross
platform GUI) that has been around for years and only now
come to my attention.  As part of developing new perl
releases, the entire of CPAN is checked to make sure new
features do not break existing code. 

> - error handling (exceptions?)

Of course this can be improved. The basic behaviors
are sufficient, tho. 

> - sometimes too rigid ways of method calling
 
Perl is rarely accused of this. Using it's the other way around--
too many ways.  Do you have a specific example?

Otherwise I don't really belong comparing the two languages
as haven't done significant work with python.

Have fun with whatever language :-)

Joel

> Python3:
> PRO:
> - HUGE and modern ECO system, and mostly good&useful documentation
> - Developers listening to user's wishes, recognizing and completing
>   missing features and seeing modern developments
>   (things like string interpolation with f-literals)
> - flexible ways of method calling with default/optional/... parameters
> - a certain level of rigidness keeps your code understandable even if
>   you touch it a year later, and also for the code from your colleagues
> - the uniform usage of certain infrastructure components (like argparse)
>   became universal in the last few years
> NEUTRAL:
> - OOP is okay. Good or bad depending on whom you ask. Good because it
>   allows for "wild west" OO design which still allows the interpreter to
>   convert it into something useful in the end. Bad because this happens
>   and runtime and because there are life-saving type checks and no real
>   interfaces possible with Python.
> CONTRA:
> - OOP: ... one MUST keep writing "self." prefix all the time. What the
>   heck, one of the reasons for refactoring to OO style is to have this
>   shortened because the context prefers local objects.
> - "meaningful whitespace" - whoever came up with that concept should maybe
>   rethink it, and give people alternatives
> - no (easy user-controllable) concept of references etc. which always
>   feels like something causing memory waste
> - performance SUCKS when it comes to actual computation (yes, there is
>   Cython coming as alternative and replacement/completion but it has its
>   own issues)
> - awkward lifetime of variables (yes, they are not variables,
>   just "assignments" AND YOU GONNA KNOW IT WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND REAL PYTHON,
>   haha, I know, but still, it's a very unusual model, and unnatural /
>   problematic to handle for developers who are used to scope driven languages)
> - performance (again) of multi-threading... GIL sucks, making regular
>   Python basically a single-threaded language (considering that
>   performance gain is the main performance of MT)
> 
> So that were my few cents regarding the scripting languages. For a real
> n00b nowadays, I would still recommend to learn Bash first. But always
> keep in mind that "Bash programming" is a mix of executing commands in
> the own language but mixing the result with the external forking of
> other programs.
> 
> However, the lines between "scripting" and "real programming" languages
> are blurry. If one is asking for the later, nowadays I would suggest
> learning C# or Rust.
> 
> Eduard.
> 

1. https://www.perl.com/pub/2007/12/06/soto-11.html/
-- 
Joel Roth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256875

Joel Roth wrote:

> There is a new object system being cooked up, based on
> decades of experience with OO in perl and other languages.
>
> There is already more than enough OO goodness for me to get
> my work done :-)

Guys, word on the street the former OO guys at C++ don't speak
of OO anymore, but they still think their language is great,
better even because now they (in their minds) have "the best of
both world", i.e. they don't have to focus on the OO and
especially not its theoretic aspects but just use whatever is
useful from it and use that as just another tool ...

Are they right?

I think that reasoning anyway is correct, don't know if their
language is the best as a consequence necessarily but that
reasoning makes sense 100%

Anyway one should have like a benchmark and all programming
should compile their binary for that, so one could install the
benchmark and you would get all the binaries also and/or the
would be compiled if necessary, then all would execute on the
benchmark and one would have the result outputted.

But we already know the answer to this question, C is fast,
the faster it is, the less cycles.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256872

Eduard Bloch wrote:

> I don't think so, Sir! Python has certain advantages but the
> "meaningful whitespace" is IMHO not one of them.
>
> That said, I have been an active Perl user ~20y ago

My rule is a couple of weeks is enough to get "damaged" from
it, some of that damage is good to have tho ... so its
50/50 (not quantifying positive and negative damage :))

> and for the last couple of years slowly converting to Python
> for scripting purposes, still using Perl here and there.

Okay really, cool, this will be an interesting post ...

>   especially when one knows "computer science" and
>   understands what is going on underneath anyway

Haha, that must feel nice B)

> [Comparison Perl and Python]

Okay, can you boil it down to some one, two, maybe three main
things that can answer the question why these languages have
taken the different directions they have taken?

Is it true what I say about devel time? If so, what do you
think the reasons are?

Or what do you think are the main explanations and why do you
think it is like that?

That said, your reply is the kind of reply I would make from
something I know well ... cred

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256878

On Saturday, April 08, 2023 09:55:14 AM Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Okay, can you boil it down to some one, two, maybe three main
> things that can answer the question why these languages have
> taken the different directions they have taken?

I think that in some | many cases, especially in the early days of 
programming, languages were written based on what the language designer was 
familiar with (and what he did or didn't like) about those languages.

Without having much familiarity with Perl, I might guess that Larry Wall was 
familiar with things like awk, sed, bash and such, and wrote Perl to a certain 
extent to combine what he considered the good features of those and fix what he 
considered the bad features of those. In addition,  I guess  his general goal 
was text processing.

My first language was Algol, a language that wrote out keywords and such so 
that it was easier to understand (for me) what a given program was doing.  It 
was also structured (if that is the right word), having things like groups of 
statements (within, iirc, begin / end statements) (something that, at the 
time, iirc, Fortran (II) didn't have.

(Aside: pretty printing of code like that (if pretty printing was a thing at 
that time, it is aggravating not remembering so many details) was (or could 
be) accomplished partly by indenting blocks of code, hence I am rather 
comfortable (or more than just comfortable) with Python's enforced 
indentation).

Algol (and then Pascal and Python) were more general purpose languages, 
capable of doing text processing, but maybe more then intent was (in my words) 
numeric processing for scientific and mathmatical purposes.

Lisp: I guess I won't comment at this point in time -- when I was trying to 
learn (people were trying to teach me) Lisp, it seemed the big emphasis was on 
learning how to use , was it "cons" and something else to get the beginning or 
remainder of a list -- it never (in the course I took) seemed to progress into 
something that could really do what seemed to me at the time, useful things.

So, to repeat, probably without proving my point, I think many early languages 
were designed based on what the designer new about other languages and what he 
thought were good or bad features of those other languages.

There were (and are) maybe more speicalized languages, designed to be good for 
a particular field of endeavor, and languages that incorporate new programming 
features / paradigms that didn't exist when some languages were designed 
(e.g., object oriented and functional programming (well, unless maybe Lisp is 
considered and early example of functional programming).

For kicks, I will mention that I am experimenting with writing a program (a 
lexer for Scintilla for a markup language that I use, partly of my own design)  
using ChatGPT, and I'm impressed with the results.  (I haven't yet compiled 
any of the code to test it, but I hope to get there maybe sometime in June as 
I expect to have more free time after April 18 (but probably won't have that 
free time :-( 

-- 
rhk 

(sig revised 20230312 -- modified first paragraph, some other irrelevant 
wordsmithing)
                
| No entity has permission to use this email to train an AI. 

If you reply: snip, snip, and snip again; leave attributions; avoid HTML; 
avoid top posting; and keep it "on list".  (Oxford comma (and semi-colon) 
included at no charge.)  If you revise the topic, change the Subject: line.  
If you change the topic, start a new thread.

Writing is often meant for others to read and understand (legal documents 
excepted?) -- make it easier for your reader by various means, including 
liberal use of whitespace (short paragraphs, separated by whitespace / blank 
lines) and minimal use of (obscure?) jargon, abbreviations, acronyms, and 
references.

If someone has already responded to a question, decide whether any response 
you add will be helpful or not ...

A picture is worth a thousand words.  A video (or "audio"): not so much -- 
divide by 10 for each minute of video (or audio) or create a transcript and 
edit it to 10% of the original.

A speaker who uses ahhs, ums, or such may have a real physical or mental 
disability, or may be showing disrespect for his listeners by not properly 
preparing in advance and thinking before speaking. (That speaker might have 
been "trained" to do this by being interrupted often if he pauses.)  (Remember 
Cicero who did not have enough time to write a short missive.)

A radio (or TV) station which broadcasts speakers with high pitched voices (or 
very low pitched / gravelly voices) (which older people might not be able to 
hear properly) disrespects its listeners.   Likewise if it broadcasts 
extraneous or disturbing sounds (like gunfire or crying), or broadcasts 
speakers using their native language (with or without an overdubbed 
translation).

A person who writes a sig this long probably has issues and disrespects (and 
offends) a large number of readers. ;-)
'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256904

On Sat, Apr 08, 2023 at 10:23:15AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> My first language was Algol, a language that wrote out keywords and such so 
> that it was easier to understand (for me) what a given program was doing.  It 
> was also structured (if that is the right word), having things like groups of 
> statements (within, iirc, begin / end statements) (something that, at the 
> time, iirc, Fortran (II) didn't have.

Yes, "structured programming" was the term used.  Structured
programming uses functions, while loops, if/then/else statements, and
so on, instead of "GOTO 1230" type commands, to control a program's flow.

One of the basic goals of structured programming languages was to
eliminate reliance on line numbers -- which were the hallmark of many
other languages in use at the time.

Nowadays, we rarely think about this, because structured programming
won its battle.  All modern languages are built on this paradigm.  Even
the most primitive Unix Bourne shell (sh) has no GOTO command.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256905

Greg Wooledge wrote:

> Yes, "structured programming" was the term used.
> Structured programming uses functions, while loops,
> if/then/else statements, and so on, instead of "GOTO 1230"
> type commands, to control a program's flow.
>
> One of the basic goals of structured programming languages
> was to eliminate reliance on line numbers -- which were the
> hallmark of many other languages in use at the time.
>
> Nowadays, we rarely think about this, because structured
> programming won its battle. All modern languages are built
> on this paradigm

Yes, of course :)

But, cool way of telling that story B)

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256907

> Yes, "structured programming" was the term used.
> Structured programming uses functions, while loops,
> if/then/else statements, and so on, instead of "GOTO 1230"
> type commands, to control a program's flow.
>
> One of the basic goals of structured programming languages
> was to eliminate reliance on line numbers -- which were the
> hallmark of many other languages in use at the time.
>
> Nowadays, we rarely think about this, because structured
> programming won its battle. All modern languages are built
> on this paradigm

One should do a super-lisp with focus on doing everything and
not caring about the Lisp aspects, maybe one could have
a "Lisp Python" that way?

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256914

Hi,

Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Yes, "structured programming" was the term used.  Structured
> programming uses functions, while loops, if/then/else statements, and
> so on, instead of "GOTO 1230" type commands, to control a program's flow.

Like with Rocky Mountain BASIC of HP 9000 machines in contrast to the
MS-BASIC of my VIC-20.


> Even the most primitive Unix Bourne shell (sh) has no GOTO command.

I was never a fan of Dijkstra's "Go To Statement Considered Harmful"
and perceive modern spaghetti inheritence as more obscure than any goto
noodling.

This paragraph in Linux docs comprehensively shows why C still has its
goto:
  https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v6.0/process/coding-style.html
  "7) Centralized exiting of functions"


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256920

On Saturday, April 08, 2023 01:44:48 PM Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> I was never a fan of Dijkstra's "Go To Statement Considered Harmful"
> and perceive modern spaghetti inheritence as more obscure than any goto
> noodling.

Good point!

-- 
rhk 

(sig revised 20230312 -- modified first paragraph, some other irrelevant 
wordsmithing)
                
| No entity has permission to use this email to train an AI. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256921

rhkramer wrote:

>> I was never a fan of Dijkstra's "Go To Statement Considered
>> Harmful" and perceive modern spaghetti inheritence as more
>> obscure than any goto noodling.
>
> Good point!

But that's not modern :)

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256932

On 08/04/2023 23:20, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> One of the basic goals of structured programming languages was to
> eliminate reliance on line numbers -- which were the hallmark of many
> other languages in use at the time.

or reliance on labels (represented by numbers) for goto destination as 
in early fortran

       IF(I.GT.J)GO TO 40
  c    ...
   40  J=J+1

> Nowadays, we rarely think about this, because structured programming
> won its battle.

William Slater, Howard Modell.
Structured Programming Considered Harmful
ACM SIGPlan Notices, VOL#13, ISS#4, April 1978, pgs.76-79
https://www.modell.com/Magery/SPharmful.html
https://doi.acm.org/10.1145/953411.953418

I know, considered harmful was considered harmful as well.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256717

On 4/2/23 18:15, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> David Christensen wrote:
> 
>> Look at the use of parentheses in Lisp [...]
> 
> I have thought about that - is Lisp possible without them?
> But how do you then know priority? I'm sure someone tried to
> get rid of them, but how?

Its quite a few years since I had anything to do with Lisp, and even more since I wrote my Symbolic Logic final using parenthesis-free Polish notation (i.e., Reversed RPN). But I think that

(a) Any syntactically correct Lisp expression could be unambiguously expressed using Polish notation.

(b) It would be straightforward to build a tool that would do so for any valid Lisp program (probably with lex and yacc or their successors).

(c) Adequate translation tools (either direction) could be hand-produced in reasonable time using Perl (or Python, which I do not know at all). My memory here is not necessarily reliable and therefore subject to correction.

Like my Logic instructor many years ago, I am not sure why anyone would want to do that, though.

Overall, this has been a pretty interesting thread, at least to me.

Regards.
Tom Dial

( ...)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256874

Tom Dial wrote:

>>> Look at the use of parentheses in Lisp [...]
>>
>> I have thought about that - is Lisp possible without them?
>> But how do you then know priority? I'm sure someone tried
>> to get rid of them, but how?
>
> Its quite a few years since I had anything to do with Lisp,
> and even more since I wrote my Symbolic Logic final using
> parenthesis-free Polish notation (i.e., Reversed RPN).

Yes, you mean instead of

  (* 1 2 (+ 1 2 3) 3)

How would that look?

1 2
  1 2 3 +
  3 *

?

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256886

On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Tom Dial wrote:
>
>>>> Look at the use of parentheses in Lisp [...]
>>>
>>> I have thought about that - is Lisp possible without them?
>>> But how do you then know priority? I'm sure someone tried
>>> to get rid of them, but how?
>>
>> Its quite a few years since I had anything to do with Lisp,
>> and even more since I wrote my Symbolic Logic final using
>> parenthesis-free Polish notation (i.e., Reversed RPN).
>
> Yes, you mean instead of
>
>  (* 1 2 (+ 1 2 3) 3)
>
> How would that look?

That particular term, with those commutative operators (in *Reversed*
Reverse Polish Notation, ie, in Polish/Prefix Notation), is equivalent
to this:

* 1 2 3 + 1 2 3

In the general case, allowing operators of variable arity (which I
doubt were part of the logic exam) require an arity-indicating
argument, but that's simple enough, isn't it?

So your example, without commutation of the arguments, would be

*4 1 2 +3 1 2 3 3

with *4 indicating 4-nary multiplication, and +3 ternary addition.

-- 
Hackers are free people. They are like artists. If they are in a good
mood, they get up in the morning and begin painting their pictures.
-- Vladimir Putin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256891

davidson wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 Emanuel Berg wrote:
>
>> Tom Dial wrote:
>>
>>>>> Look at the use of parentheses in Lisp [...]
>>>>
>>>> I have thought about that - is Lisp possible without them?
>>>> But how do you then know priority? I'm sure someone tried
>>>> to get rid of them, but how?
>>>
>>> Its quite a few years since I had anything to do with Lisp,
>>> and even more since I wrote my Symbolic Logic final using
>>> parenthesis-free Polish notation (i.e., Reversed RPN).
>>
>> Yes, you mean instead of
>>
>>  (* 1 2 (+ 1 2 3) 3)
>>
>> How would that look?
>
> That particular term, with those commutative operators (in
> *Reversed* Reverse Polish Notation, ie, in Polish/Prefix
> Notation), is equivalent to this:
>
> * 1 2 3 + 1 2 3

? Not following ...

> In the general case, allowing operators of variable arity
> (which I doubt were part of the logic exam) require an
> arity-indicating argument, but that's simple enough,
> isn't it?
>
> So your example, without commutation of the arguments, would be
>
> *4 1 2 +3 1 2 3 3
>
> with *4 indicating 4-nary multiplication, and +3
> ternary addition.

No can't have that, what if you don't know the arity (it's
computed) and no new goofy syntax introduced haha :)

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#257025

On 4/8/23 08:19, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Tom Dial wrote:
> 
>>>> Look at the use of parentheses in Lisp [...]
>>>
>>> I have thought about that - is Lisp possible without them?
>>> But how do you then know priority? I'm sure someone tried
>>> to get rid of them, but how?
>>
>> Its quite a few years since I had anything to do with Lisp,
>> and even more since I wrote my Symbolic Logic final using
>> parenthesis-free Polish notation (i.e., Reversed RPN).
> 
> Yes, you mean instead of
> 
>    (* 1 2 (+ 1 2 3) 3)
> 
> How would that look?
> 
> 1 2
>    1 2 3 +
>    3 *
> 
> ?
Following Lukaciewicz,
   * * * 1 2 + + 1 2 3 3

Evaluation:
   * * * 1 2 + + 1 2 3 3 =>
   * * * 1 2 + 3     3 3 =>
   * * * 1 2 6         3 =>
   * * 2     6         3 =>
   * 12                3 =>
   36

	or

   * * * 1 2 + + 1 2 3 3 =>
   * * 2     + + 1 2 3 3 =>
   * * 2     + 3     3 3 =>
   * * 2     6         3 =>
   * 12                3 =>
   36

With RPN:
    1 2 1 2 3 + + 3 * * *

Evaluation:
    1 2 1 2 3 + + 3 * * * =>
=> 1 2 1     5 + 3 * * * =>
=> 1 2         6 3 * * * =>
=> 1 2            18 * * =>
=> 1                36 * =>
=> 36

'*' and '+' are binary operations. The simplified version '1 2 1 2 3 + 3 *' is ambiguous without the sort of stop rules that parentheses provide in Lisp. It is less than obvious how to provide for N-ary operations with N > 2. One, maybe the simplest, is shown above.

Regards,
Tom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256880

Tom Dial wrote:

>>> Look at the use of parentheses in Lisp [...]
>>>
>> I have thought about that - is Lisp possible without them?
>> But how do you then know priority? I'm sure someone tried
>> to get rid of them, but how?
>
> Its quite a few years since I had anything to do with Lisp,
> and even more since I wrote my Symbolic Logic final using
> parenthesis-free Polish notation (i.e., Reversed RPN).

In Lisp the priority problem usually solved with parenthesis
is solved, with a special syntax, so you don't need
parenthesis for that ...

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256762

On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 02:15:10 +0200
Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> wrote:

...

> I agree but I think maybe the success of Python, and its
> development speed, is actually because of some of that
> rigidness, yes, including the whitespace lack of freedom.

I'm no great programmer, and many posters in this thread are certainly
far more proficient than I, but one of the things that ultimately drove
me from Perl to Python is the striking contrast between Perl's
TIMTOWTDI with Python's "There should be one -- and preferably only one
-- obvious way to do it." Maybe good programmers like TIMTOWTDI, but
for me, the paradox of choice is strong; programming is hard enough as
it is, and I vastly prefer not having to exert mental energy to decide
on the best way to do something when that's unnecessary.

-- 
Celejar

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256883

Celejar wrote:

>> I agree but I think maybe the success of Python, and its
>> development speed, is actually because of some of that
>> rigidness, yes, including the whitespace lack of freedom.
>
> I'm no great programmer, and many posters in this thread are
> certainly far more proficient than I, but one of the things
> that ultimately drove me from Perl to Python is the striking
> contrast between Perl's TIMTOWTDI with Python's "There
> should be one -- and preferably only one -- obvious way to
> do it." Maybe good programmers like TIMTOWTDI, but for me,
> the paradox of choice is strong; programming is hard enough
> as it is, and I vastly prefer not having to exert mental
> energy to decide on the best way to do something when
> that's unnecessary.

I know, right?

We have to get this organized ...

First of all, the stuff that makes Python devel fast for
novice programmers also make it fast (and good) for
experienced programmers ... it's clear, people didn't
understand this in the beginning. They think "Python is fast
for beginners", this is something good and means its EVEN
FASTER for pro, people didn't understand this and was
interpreting my words like "Python is for beginners", one the
contrary, or rather, it's for anyone including beginners and
pros LOL :)

Second, what is it that makes Python good? Is it just speed
of devel? And everything else but that is the one advantage
that like is undisputed?

That's the bottom line truth to it?

Speed kills, ey?

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256632

On 4/2/23 01:59, coreyh@free.fr wrote:
> I saw many commands in /bin and /usr/bin are written by perl.
> is perl still the first choice for sysadmin on linux?
> 
> Thanks.


For sysadmin, I *use* what comes on the platform.  On Debian:

2023-04-02 13:40:08 root@taz ~
# cat /etc/debian_version ; uname -a
11.6
Linux taz 5.10.0-21-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 5.10.162-1 (2023-01-21) x86_64 
GNU/Linux

2023-04-02 13:40:17 root@taz ~
# echo $PATH | tr ':' '\n' | perl -MFile::Slurp -ne 
'chomp;@e=read_dir($_,prefix=>1); print map "$_\n",@e'|xargs file|perl 
-pe 's/\S+\s+//'|grep -v 'symbolic link'|perl -pe 's/, dynamically 
linked.+//'|sort|uniq -c|sort -rn
    1868 ELF 64-bit LSB pie executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV)
     356 POSIX shell script, ASCII text executable
     192 Perl script text executable
      40 Python script, ASCII text executable
      36 Bourne-Again shell script, ASCII text executable
      30 setuid ELF 64-bit LSB pie executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV)
      20 ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV)
      16 setgid ELF 64-bit LSB pie executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV)
      14 Tcl script, ASCII text executable
      10 ELF 64-bit LSB pie executable, x86-64, version 1 (GNU/Linux)
       8 POSIX shell script, UTF-8 Unicode text executable
       4 Python script, UTF-8 Unicode text executable
       4 POSIX shell script, ASCII text executable, with very long lines
       2 a /usr/bin/env sh script, ASCII text executable
       2 a /bin/mksh script, UTF-8 Unicode text executable
       2 Python script, ISO-8859 text executable
       2 Java source, UTF-8 Unicode text
       2 ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (GNU/Linux)
       2 Bourne-Again shell script, ASCII text executable, with very 
long lines


On FreeBSD:

2023-04-02 13:46:50 toor@f3 ~
# freebsd-version -kru
12.4-RELEASE-p1
12.4-RELEASE-p1
12.4-RELEASE-p2

2023-04-02 13:46:57 toor@f3 ~
# echo $PATH | tr ':' '\n' | perl -MFile::Slurp -ne 
'chomp;@e=read_dir($_,prefix=>1); print map "$_\n",@e'|xargs file|perl 
-pe 's/\S+\s+//'|grep -v 'symbolic link'|perl -pe 's/, dynamically 
linked.+//'|sort|uniq -c|sort -rn
1022 ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (FreeBSD)
   91 POSIX shell script, ASCII text executable
   78 Perl script text executable
   22 setuid ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (FreeBSD)
   20 a /usr/local/bin/perl5.30.3 script, ASCII text executable
   14 ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (FreeBSD), statically 
linked, for FreeBSD 12.4, FreeBSD-style, stripped
    7 Python script, ASCII text executable
    6 setgid ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (FreeBSD)
    5 setuid, setgid ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (FreeBSD)
    4 a /usr/bin/env /usr/local/bin/python3.9 script, ASCII text executable
    4 POSIX shell script, Unicode text, UTF-8 text executable
    3 Ruby script, ASCII text
    1 POSIX shell script, ISO-8859 text executable
    1 ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (FreeBSD), statically 
linked, for FreeBSD 12.3, FreeBSD-style, with debug_info, not stripped
    1 Bourne-Again shell script, ASCII text executable


I *write' Perl, Bourne, and Make.


David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web