On Wed, 16 May 2001, Adam Turoff wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 08:57:42AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote: > > It doesn't look to me like the amount of Perl one needs to know to achieve > > a given level of productivity is increasing in volume or complexity at > > all. What it looks like to me is that there are additional features being > > added which enable one to achieve greater levels of productivity and > > performance if one wants to learn them. > > Who *wants* to be unproductive? I think Peter's point is that you can at least maintain your current level of productivity without doing anything but that, if you take the time to learn the new features, your productivity might go up...not necessarily, since the new features may not help with what your doing, but maybe. (Peter, I'm putting words in your mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong.) Dave
- Re: Perl, the new generation Edward Peschko
- Re: Perl, the new generation Nathan Torkington
- Re: Perl, the new generation Mike Lacey
- Re: Perl, the new generation Adam Turoff
- Re: Perl, the new generation Dan Sugalski
- RE: Perl, the new generation David Grove
- Re: Perl, the new generation Stephen P. Potter
- RE: Perl, the new generation Peter Scott
- Re: Perl, the new generation Adam Turoff
- Re: Perl, the new generation Peter Scott
- RE: Perl, the new generation Dave Storrs
- RE: Perl, the new generation Dave Storrs
- RE: Perl, the new generation David Grove
- Re: Perl, the new generation Simon Cozens
- Re: Perl, the new generation Dave Storrs
- Re: Perl, the new generation Nathan Torkington
- Re: Perl, the new generation Bryan C. Warnock
- Re: Perl, the new generation Dan Sugalski
- Re: Perl, the new generation Randal L. Schwartz
- Re: Perl, the new generation Nathan Torkington
- Re: Perl, the new generation Dan Sugalski