No response? I hope you guys didn't think I was trolling. I was really hoping that someone on this list could point to a problem space (e.g. bioinformatics) or an application domain where they could make a compelling case for starting a new project in Perl.
I would be concerned about the future of the language if no one can make this case. -- David On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:59 PM, David Larochelle <[email protected]>wrote: > Thinking about this more, I realize that marketing Perl to new developers > will require there to be clear cases in which we can argue that Perl is the > obvious choice. Usually, these type of arguments rely as much on community, > libraries, and tools as core language. > > For example, the typical argument for Python in the data analysis space is > that there are good well documented libraries (e.g. numpy, scikit-learn, > matplotlib, nltk), there's a large data focused community, and that Python > makes it easy to write programs quickly that run fast enough. Basicly they > claim to be easier to use than Java and R while having better data > libraries and community than Perl or Ruby. > > Is there a domain in which we could make a similar argument for Perl? > Currently, it seems that the reason people code in Perl is because they > know Perl or because they have an existing Perl code base. Can anyone come > up with a use case in which we could make a compelling argument for > building a new system in Perl as opposed Python or Ruby? What if other > languages such as C++, Java, or Scala are available? > > (The best I can do is to cite the safety benefits from the compile time > checking that Perl provides which Python and Ruby do not. This allows bugs > such as typos in variable names to be caught at compile time. I don't think > this would be enough though. The responses I imagine getting would be 1.) > you should be using unit tests anyway or 2.) use a strongly typed language > if you want compile time guarantees.) > > Any thoughts? > > -- > > David > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:17 PM, David Larochelle > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Stevan Little's talk "Perl is not dead, it is a >> deadend"<https://speakerdeck.com/stevan_little/perl-is-not-dead-it-is-a-dead-end>and >> his recent follow on Perl >> - The Detroit of Scripting >> Languages<https://speakerdeck.com/stevan_little/perl-the-detroit-of-scripting-languages> >> are >> apropos. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:06 AM, john saylor <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> BEGIN {} >>> >>> On 7/22/13 19:14 , Bill Ricker wrote: >>> >>>> http://anonymoushash.**vmbrasseur.com/2013/07/22/the-** >>>> rising-costs-of-aging-perlers-**part-1-the-data/<http://anonymoushash.vmbrasseur.com/2013/07/22/the-rising-costs-of-aging-perlers-part-1-the-data/> >>>> >>> >>> this was good and interesting. not earthshaking but nicely done. >>> >>> in the sweep of history [as i know it], i view perl as a stepping stone >>> on the way to the best human computer programming interface we can imagine. >>> enough time has passed [and then passed again] for smart programmers to >>> look at perl, take what is good and make something new that seems better. >>> >>> the wheel keeps turning. perl is still unique in many ways. i think >>> [literary] artists and anarchists will always like it because TMTOWTDI. and >>> to the practical minded; it just works [still]. >>> >>> programming language popularity is based on many things. the days of >>> world domination are ancient history; but in so far as i can see the future >>> [i can't], there will always be someone with a programming problem that >>> will turn to perl for the answer. >>> >>> thank you larry. >>> >>> -- >>> \js [http://or8.net/~johns/] : i am alive >>> >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> Boston-pm mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://mail.pm.org/mailman/**listinfo/boston-pm<http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm> >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
