in reply to Re: 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?
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Look, it's fine if you don't want to call the Camel outdated. But then, be consistent, and don't call other (hypothetic) books outdated either.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
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re: Re: (OT) I prefer to do my learning with: dead trees or flying electrons?
by Anonymous Monk on Sep 23, 2003 at 18:21 UTC |