On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Grove wrote:

> For me, it's the bare minimum amount of Perl you must *use* to be productive
> that I see increasing in our plans and discussions. I'm afraid of Perl
> turning into a verbose monstrosity to please verbosity addicts of languages
> whose only point of advocacy is Perl FUD. Once quick and dirty dies, Perl
> dies.

        Several thoughts for you, David.  All of these should be taken
from the perspective of someone who cut his teeth on 5.x and has never had
to deal with the (joys|differences|horrors) of 4.x.

        1) I agree that Perl is a big language and it's hard to hold it in
your head.  I frequently find that some bit of it that I haven't used in a
while has fallen out and I need to go read up on it again.

        2) Respectfully, I don't think that we can accurately say that the
minimum amount of Perl needed in order to be productive is increasing; we
haven't finished defining P6 yet, so how can we know this?

        3) You have every right to be afraid of anything you want to be
afraid of, and to express your concerns about it.  However, the way that
you chose to do that ("Once quick and dirty dies, Perl dies.") implies
that the only thing that Perl is good for is q-n-d, and this is simply not
the case.  I have written enterprise-quality code, for large systems, in
Perl, and I will absolutely defend Perl's ability on that playing
field.  

        4) While your concern is well taken, I think you are doing
yourself a disservice by using such inflammatory language...it makes me
(and probably others) focus more on your tone than on your point.

                        Dave Storrs


Reply via email to