|
in reply to RE: JARTUP (Just Another Reason to Use Perl)
in thread JARTUP (Just Another Reason to Use Perl)
little: "Mustn't be interpreted as an evidence for Perl's superioity"
Actually, it should be. I have discovered a truly remarkable
proof of this, which this post is unfortunately too small
to contain. |
Perl Superiority Replace All Langs, BLAH BLAH BLAh
by Nitsuj (Hermit) on Oct 02, 2000 at 10:41 UTC
|
Ok, I admit it, I use perl incessantly, and I love every second of it, but lets be perfectly honest, there is a right tool for every job. If I'm doing list processing, a LISP variant is probably the right tool. Logical analysis, better look at prolog if I want to get the job done quick. Writing to the processor? Writing an OS? Better look at C and ASM. Lets not forget that Larry Wall and the Porters write perl, and love perl, certainly as much as anyone else around here, and they write it in C. What am I saying??? Right tool, right job... Perl is a GREAT tool, it's the programmer's all purpose chainsaw! I doubt that Quake IV will be written in perl, however.
Just Another Perl Backpacker | [reply] |
|
|
I do agree with you. But as far as my experience goes, I think that Perl is best for general programming, and if speed is an issue, C(++) should be used. But from within Perl, that would mean, writing most stuff in Perl itself, and use the speed-needing code in C, and link it to Perl with XS.
I've used lots of environments, Prolog, Pascal, C (a little), Mapper, Progress 4GL, REXX, but never found a language that suited for so many different tasks like Perl does.
I don't know anything about LISP, but I can't imagine that it would be worth learning if Perl speeds up my productivity as much as it does...
Jouke Visser, Perl 'Adept'
| [reply] |
|
|
Wrong. Given the background you cite, you would almost
certainly profit from learning a functional language
(LISP or Scheme spring to mind, or Haskell).
Please see also Why I like functional programming (from tilly).
It will provide more background.
Christian Lemburg
Brainbench MVP for Perl
http://www.brainbench.com
| [reply] |
|
|
RE: RE: RE: JARTUP (Just Another Reason to Use Perl)
by little (Curate) on Sep 29, 2000 at 14:54 UTC
|
Petruchio,
So please feel free to e-mail it (or even a link) to me.
And yes, I agree to all who say, that something people like so much that they point out their good experiences with it, seems to be good and efficient.
But does that imply that all other solutions are worse?
I don't trust statistics except those I've made up :-)) | [reply] |
|
|
little: "So please feel free to e-mail it (or even a link)
to me."
Actually, it was just a joke... and since the explanation
is sort of interesting, I'll go into it.
Take the equation of this general form, rendered here in
Perl:
($x**$n + $y**$n) == $z**$n;
The Pythagorean Theorem, which you doubtless remember,
involves a special case:
($x**2 + $y**2) == $z**2;
In 1637, Pierre de Fermat claimed that the general equation
was false for any case where ($n > 2); this became known as
Fermat's Last Theorem. The theorem was proven only
recently, in enormously complex fashion, after about 350
years of anguished mathmeticians losing sleep over it.
Which brings us to the joke. Fermat, in describing his
theorem, noted, "I have discovered a truly marvellous
proof, which this margin is too narrow to contain." Which
is fairly ridiculous; he pretty certainly discovered no
such thing. And neither have I.
| [reply] |
|
|
