An opinion on the topic of popularity from someone with a different pov:
How different?
Well, I started subscribing to this list a couple of years ago in conjunction with learning Perl. I wanted to listen in on how Perl Gurus talk! (yup) (hope that's ok)This is my first post and could be my last too. I'm not much for posting.
I am a biologist by training and profession (e.g. have a PhD in it and teach genetics, cell, etc)
I am doing a little research in bioinformatics with a CS colleague and a bunch of CS students. About 6 years ago, we started writing our software in C++ but now are switching a lot of important stuff to Perl.
And don't get offended but-in spite of my extreme novice status, I am busy co-authoring (with CS colleague) a manuscript (that hopes to become a book on Perl!) from the pov of a Perl NOVICE (but great fan) who wants to apply Perl (and RegEx) to solving all sorts of fun practical string searching problems (DNA is a string of course.)
And so here is my idea about popularity, starting with a metaphor!
When lovers of dragonflies set out to popularize them, to try to bring them up to a similar status to that of birds or butterflies, they made up attractive common names for each one. For example "goldenrings" instead of Cordulegastridae and then they came up with the idea of viewing and identifying them on the wing with binoculars (like birds!) The multi-syllabic Latin name still stands as the most important identifier-but novices can now enter the dragonfly club more easily.
So that's kind of what I, the biologist (in my role as co-researcher with my CS friends) am trying to do with Perl. I am hoping that it can be made to seem delightful and charming to other biologists almost instantly, on the very first page. I am pretty sure that even someone with no programming experience could be quickly captivated by Perl.
To what end? Well, most likely any biologist on a team of bioinformatics researchers that includes a bunch of Perl programmers will NOT quit her day job as a biologist (at which she is much needed) and become a Perl guru. Therefore I will always be a dabbler. But that ought to be OK. And I think if endUsers of Perl programs, got to dabble a bit in Perl,-still relying on gurus for the really serious problems-the word would spread much faster and along different, new avenues (biologists talking to biologists for example) about the glories of Perl.
We are fortunate to have a very compatible (albeit low key) research group and I get to see (and talk about) lots of Perl script, almost none written by myself, but enjoyable nonetheless. However I am also aware of DISfunctional bioinformatics groups (often in industry) in which the programmers are off by themselves and the biologists never get to see what is inside the black box. They might not even be completely aware that the stuff is being written in perl and why that should be the language of choice.
So even though the conversation thread was about popularization on a different higher level, I just tried to stretch it a bit to an area just outside (down and to the left) of the community.
-- Betsey Dexter Dyer Department of Biology Wheaton College Norton, MA 02766 USA 1-508-286-3951 fax 285-8278
_______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
