Re: perl

[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/22]

* Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-12-22 14:05]:
> "while()" and "for(;;)" are not "more than one way of doing
> things".
> 
> "if" and "unless" are not "more than one way of doing things".
> 
> In both cases, these are "one way of doing things, with two
> different syntaxes".
> 
> When you look at languages that really *have* the kind of
> flexibility that allows the programmer to create "more than one
> way of doing things", Perl looks like a little kid showing up
> at the office with his dad's tie and boots and claiming he can
> do the job.
> 
> Compare generators in Icon or Smalltalk, or using introspection
> and reflection to *create* new control structures like 'if' and
> 'unless' and 'while' and 'for' in Lisp-family languages, or the
> ultimate machine-code-to-4gl flexibility in Forth, to Perl's
> rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty, and you'll
> begin to see just how hateful this bogus claim about Forth
> really is.

Ah, you're complaining that Perl already has different syntaxes
for one way of doing things, whereas you prefer languages that
let you define your own additional syntaxes for the same way of
doing things.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>;

• Peter da Silva 13:01 on 22 Dec 2006
  • A. Pagaltzis 18:49 on 22 Dec 2006
    • peter (Peter da Silva) 21:58 on 22 Dec 2006

Generated at 22:02 on 27 Dec 2006 by mariachi 0.52