

Why I Stuck With Perl - nkurz
http://blogs.perl.org/users/jeffrey_kegler/2011/01/why-i-stuck-with-perl.html

======
jhuni
My reason for using Perl is to escape from OOP. All of the modern mainstream
programming languages, C++, Java, C#, Python, Ruby, JavaScript, etc are all
strongly OOP.

On the other hand, Perl is very much a procedural langauge. Besides Perl code
that is written in a procedural style, many Perl modules are written in C
which is a strictly procedural language.

There is Moose for OOP stuff, but that is just added onto the language as an
afterthought, and many libraries don't use it so we can at least say that Perl
is less OOP then all of the other mainstream languages.

I don't know what it is, I just hate OOP. It seems absolutely revolting to me,
so I stuck with procedural languages. Now I have found something I like even
better: functional programming, so now I use languages like Lisp and Haskell.

As for Python, the only good features in that language: lambda, map, reduce,
and filter were added by a Lisp hacker. Everything else in the language is
inefficient scripting crap.

~~~
kbd
> As for Python... Everything else in the language is inefficient scripting
> crap.

Would you elaborate on how this applies to Python and not Perl?

~~~
jhuni
The difference is that Perl got its good features from non-Lisp hackers that
copied Lisp. Python got its good features directly from Lisp hackers.

I am quite certain of this because I doubt there are any Lisp hackers out
there that would contribute to a language that has a periodic table of
unreadable operators

[http://glyphic.s3.amazonaws.com/ozone/mark/periodic/Periodic...](http://glyphic.s3.amazonaws.com/ozone/mark/periodic/Periodic%20Table%20of%20the%20Operators%20A4%20300dpi.jpg)

~~~
berntb
Sigh, another language war troll that don't know that table is for Perl 6 and
not for Perl 5... :-(

Can't you guys at least vary your garbage? (Assuming it isn't one guy with
multiple accounts everywhere.)

~~~
jhuni
I am very aware of the differences between Perl 5 and Perl 6. Perl 5 was a
tool that was very useful for obfscuated code contests such as this one:

<http://perl.plover.com/obfuscated/>

The new version of Perl, Perl 6, introduces new features to Perl 5 that will
make it an invaluable tool for obfuscated code contests such as unicode
characters (you thought you had to decipher the meaning of only 256
characters? Think again) and meta-operators. Perl 6 obsoletes Perl 5 for these
contests, even brainfuck is no longer a useful tool for obfuscated code
contests, because it is no match for Perl 6.

Lisp isn't very useful for these obfuscated code contests, but if you are
interested in actually writing computer programs then its worth looking into.

~~~
berntb
And now this new account claim, that if you can misuse a tool, it is bad
(please hand over all your kitchen knives).

>>Lisp isn't very useful for these obfuscated code contests

I quite like Lisp. I still am quite certain that nice macro system can be used
in many very interesting ways...

I have no problem with language war trolls either, as long as they stay at
4chan, or where ever they come from...

------
Vivtek
When I first got back into the CPAN game last year, uploading my first module
in years, it failed testing first off, and Andreas emailed me to tell me not
only that it had failed, but why.

I'll give up Perl when I'm dead - and even then, CPAN will carry on my name
unto eternity.

------
buster
I don't know.. the article basically comes down to "i use perl because someone
helped me at some point, when using it"... I don't think i would base such a
decision on that..

~~~
draegtun
I think the article was really about how useful the CPAN testing ecosystem was
(and still is) to the author.

 _Someone_ (in the community) being helpful was just an added bonus :)

------
mike_esspe
Offtopic question: this article links to
[http://everythingsysadmin.com/2011/01/python-is-better-
than-...](http://everythingsysadmin.com/2011/01/python-is-better-than-
perl6.html) where author writes that google have official UI language. Anyone
knows what is the name of that language? Is it something like XUL but for web?

~~~
arnorhs
Not sure what he's referring to. Might be Closure, which is compiler of
javascript that compiles to javascript (just smaller & faster JS)

<http://code.google.com/closure/compiler/>

------
berntb
This might be relevant, if you don't know what CPAN Testers is:

<http://wiki.cpantesters.org/wiki/WhatIsCPANTesters>

The best part is that there is a cool link from the pages at CPAN module pages
to an overview of the results. Including of the modules used.

Here is the CPAN testers results for Moose, with results for all its
dependencies:

<http://deps.cpantesters.org/?module=Moose;perl=latest>

(Note the links for every module, including a link back to CPAN. Btw, I like
the D link, which shows what CPAN modules use Moose)

~~~
__bjoernd
Thanks for that pointer. Without it I might have just guessed that you may
well get guru-like test coverage and aid from other communities.

------
sabat
Why I didn't stick with Perl (although if you did that's OK with me):

\- I discovered that a more modern language allowed me to do more with less,
more elegantly

\- Rails

\- metaprogramming

\- fun

~~~
draegtun
Why I stuck with Perl (just some of my reasons!):

\- I discovered more about the Perl language which allowed me to do more with
less, more elegantly

\- Moose

\- metaprogramming

\- fun (which is one thing Perl has always been IMHO).

~~~
lawnchairlarry
Now you know you can't claim it does those things _elegantly_ ;)

~~~
phaylon
Why not? It's a matter of taste.

~~~
sabat
It truly is a matter of taste. The fact that you write something one way in
Perl and a different way in Ruby mostly boils down to preference.

Metaprogramming in Perl? True metaprogramming?

~~~
draegtun
_Metaprogramming in Perl? True metaprogramming?_

Yep. While it is generally easier todo in Ruby I find that you often hit
limitations sooner than with Perl.

