Martin Baehr wrote:
On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 04:37:14PM +1200, Steve Holdoway wrote:
agreed.
however, it is still good for stuff that is to complex for shells.
perl at least was designed to replace shell scripts and it works well in
that area.
ok, i realize that this statement is to broad when taken out of context.
the context i had in mind was what i said about shell scripts before.
It was designed, not as you suggest, but to offer an alternative
alternative and replacement are pretty much the same thing.
it can't be an alternative if it is not able to replace.
It was *not* designed to generically replace shellscripts except in this
specific area.
well, i don't know what other areas shell scripts are used for except
data manipulation and batch processing. and as i did say that
shellscripts still are better for batch stuff, we are not necessarily in
disagreement here.
greetings, martin.
Who said anything about *batch* processing in perl?
