On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 11:57:19PM -0800, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> So what is it, really, about Perl that makes it "so different" from
> other languages.
> 
> Much Perl code that I've read looks less like Java, C++, Python, or
> VB.  It tends closer to C, Shell, awk, sed, etc.
> 
> Is it the regular expressions?  The MTOWTDI?  The use of "->" instead
> of "."?  All the funny characters?

Regular expressions never worried me, having grown used to them in vi.
"->" wasn't a problem either, and I preferred its visual distinctiveness
to the almost invisible "." used for OO programming elsewhere.  Nor were
all the funny characters or the use of $array[1] instead of @array[1] a
problem.  In fact I liked most of the things which are traditionally
considered bad about Perl.

The parts of Perl which did bother me at first were:

$_.  I felt much happier with named variables, and didn't really trust
that a language which set $_ when I expected it to do so wasn't also
going to fiddle with it behind my back.

Formats.  Having grown up on languages which have few restrictions on
code layout I didn't like the idea of painting a picture of the desired
output.  I used printf instead.

Modules not distributed with the core system.  It didn't seem quite
right using an extension; it felt too much like the sort of thing I used
to do in my Z80 and MP/M programming days when I'd peek around in the
running OS to get the information I wanted if there wasn't a standard
function to fetch it.

Conditions at the end of statements.  Before Perl the only trailing
condition with which I was familiar was C's do{}while construct and
it took some time to shake off the belief that the condition would be
executed last.

Things I loved about Perl right from the start:

Regular expressions, -w, hashes, lists, dynamically sized strings and
arrays, -w, sort, and the fact that for simple tasks I could have a
working Perl solution in less time than it took me to type

    #include <stdio.h>
    int main(argc, argv)
    int argc;
    char* argv;
    {

-- 
Matthew Winn ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Reply via email to