On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 10:12 -0700, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > - some languages are better for specific purposes (e.g. erlang and > concurrency)
And manipulation of binary data. Erlang was obviously not designed to deal with strings. > - some languages are better generalists than others, too > > Perl is a good awk + sed replacement. The problem is when people start > using it as a generalist language because they don't know better. Show me a good generalist language. I'd argue that for one of the most common operations today, Perl is hands down the winner: string manipulation. -- Stuart Jansen e-mail/jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "XML is like violence: if it doesn't solve your problem, you aren't using enough of it." - Chris Maden
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
.-----------------------------------. | This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. | | Don't Fear the Penguin. | | IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net | `-----------------------------------'
