http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=293527


in reply to Re: (OT) I prefer to do my learning with: dead trees or flying electrons?
in thread (OT) I prefer to do my learning with: dead trees or flying electrons?

One of the reasons O'Reilly books can't charme is are the poor indices . . .

Perhap. I'm comparing the Camel's index with the multitude of "Learning Perl for Fools" books out there, where they basically slap an index with a few common terms and leave the rest to the poor sod that bought the book.

What I also don't understand is that you wouldn't buy certain classes of books, because they are easily outdated, yet you break a lance for the Camel.

How much fundamental of the Camel was really obsoleted by 5.6.* or 5.8.*? Declaring variables is still the same. Looping and conditionals are the same. Declaring subroutines is the same, with at best a few attributes being added, if anything. Builtins are pretty much the same, with a few details being different. Complex datastructures, packages/modules, and OO programming are the same (notwithstanding meryln's complaints about ref $class || $class;, or the various other object systems you can use under Perl). Trying to output native, optimized code from your Perl code is still a tricky proposition. Tied filehandles became useable in 5.6.0 (IIRC), but that's a fairly small portion of the book, and it covers them anyway. Threading became somewhat useable in 5.8.0, but again, it's a small part of the book.

So small, specific sections might be a bit out of date, but I don't forsee it being unuseable at least until Perl6. That's a long ways off and a lot of Perl5 stuff will still be applicable by then. Probably Perl4, too.

----
I wanted to explore how Perl's closures can be manipulated, and ended up creating an object system by accident.
-- Schemer

Note: All code is untested, unless otherwise stated

  • Comment on Re: Re: (OT) I prefer to do my learning with: dead trees or flying electrons?
  • Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: (OT) I prefer to do my learning with: dead trees or flying electrons?
by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Sep 23, 2003 at 15:48 UTC
    How much fundamental of the Camel was really obsoleted by 5.6.* or 5.8.*?

    Well, first of all, the Camel isn't a book about fundamentals, it's a reference guide. I'd say, the camel is as obsoleted in three years, as a book about important CPAN modules does in three years. How many fundamental modules arrived on CPAN the last three years?

    Declaring variables is still the same. Looping and conditionals are the same. Declaring subroutines is the same, with at best a few attributes being added, if anything. Builtins are pretty much the same, with a few details being different. Complex datastructures, packages/modules, and OO programming are the same

    None of that has changed much since 5.000, and many fundamental things haven't changed since perl4, or even earlier Perls. If you look at fundamentals, even the pink Camel still isn't obsolete. Some important things that have changed from 5.6.* to 5.8.*, and are either missing from the Camel, or insufficiently documented: Unicode support, threading support, Perl I/O layers, signals, and a whole bunch of new modules.

    Look, it's fine if you don't want to call the Camel outdated. But then, be consistent, and don't call other (hypothetic) books outdated either.

    Abigail

[reply]
      I'd say, the camel is as obsoleted in three years, as a book about important CPAN modules does in three years. How many fundamental modules arrived on CPAN the last three years?

      Not to troll but what kind of logical argument is that? It's tantamount to saying the camel is obsolete because the price of crude oil has gone up. Backing it up by saying "11 million barrels of oil are imported into the U.S. per day!" doesn't really help the argument either.

      You also seem fairly competent at Perl programming, if the camel is so out of date (and has such poor indicies, if that's really an important point) why not write one yourself?

[reply]

In Section Meditations