yaphet jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> this is completely false when applied to real programming languages.
Please disclose what language you represent.
> => example 1: php
> => relatively easy to learn
> . retains basic perl syntax
> . less cryptic (but more verbose)
> . tight integration to databases (mySQL)
> => relatively easy to master
> => now the world's #1 scripting language for dynamic web content ;-)
I'm afraid your facts are off. Three points belong here:
1) PHP is a cheap rip-off of Perl. It started out as a Perl module and
tangented into delusions of grandeur.
2) PHP is not a language. It is a web scripting tool. Outside the web, is
does nothing. It was able to simplify some of its grammar specifically
because it doesn't need to deal with anything more than web pages.
3) Your statistics are off by a majority percent. Studies are still
showing that websites using Perl still outnumber other languages combined.
I know programmers who refuse to do business who write PHP or ASP
websites, taking that as an indication of a lack of professional "clue"
and quality. As for the ASP part, I would agree, but from experience with
those businesses rather than predisposed bias against the language.
> => example 2: ruby
> => relatively easy to learn
> . simple, elegant syntax
> . less cryptic without verbosity
> . adds perl's regular expressions
> . exploits other languages (c, java, perl...)
> . in-line modules
> . tight integration with c
> => relatively easy to master
> => now more popular than python in its native japan
> => now in us and europe - where it will displace perl and python...
;-)
Ruby is vastly considered an infant language. You are obviously a Win32
programmer who knows little about Ruby's native platform, and how it's
treated there. Ruby was a fascination for a while, but lost it instantly
when I found that it had no capability of arbitrarily nested data
structures, which are invaluable to my programming.
p
