On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 03:53:45PM +1100, George W Gerrity wrote: > What a cheek calling "the classic Bourne-style shell" "baroque" when > compared to Perl!
Need we have language wars on this list? > Lets face it. Perl is a powerful 4GL, and that's why people use it: > it is also better suited for CGI Scripts than its few contenders. Its few contenders? Almost any language can run a CGI script. What about Python, Shell, Icon, Awk, Ruby, Lua, C, Java, Ada, and Fortran? (and yes, I know someone who would probably do it in Fortran. 77, at that.) Like Perl, hate it, it hasn't got where it is due to lack of competitors. > like Ada, it is so huge with so many ways to do the same thing that > you need to be using it every day just to exercise a quarter of its > warty features. Ever programmed in Ada? Ada tends to be well-factored; your complaint might be valid if you find having both generics and object-orientation redundant, or both fixed point and floating point numbers redundant. > Making "grep", "sort", "tr", etc. UTF-8-native is not going to be a > simple task, however, unless Unix/Linux/???BSD have full support, > including built-in collation-sequence routines and a more elaborate > locale structure than now seems to be supported. What are the current problems with Linux's support? It has built-in collation routines. How native do they need to be? sort and tr, at least, ought to be doable with local-independent techniques. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org "I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less." - "Disciple", Stuart Davis -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
