On 8/12/05, Jonathan Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:01:09 -0600, "Jacob Fugal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > said: > > [1] Once again, you clipped the part of my response that clarified > > that your code also depended on a library. > > Sorry; I thought that was obvious. I wasn't trying to pull the wool > over anyone's eyes;
I'm glad. I didn't think you were, and hoped you weren't. But you *did* compare the irrelevance of Perl's string processing strength to an example of the ease of use of a library. I was demonstrating that Perl also has easy to use libraries. > only to point out that Stuart's claim that perl's > string manipulation is a major win in data-intensive applications is > stupid. Which he's still trying to dodge, but whatever. If you read Stuart's post again, his claim regarded systems that "involve a lot of text processing". He never claimed a data-intensive generalization. Numbers and bits are data too. For a number and bit data-intensive application, I wouldn't choose Perl, and I don't think Stuart would either. Jacob Fugal .-----------------------------------. | This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. | | Don't Fear the Penguin. | | IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net | `-----------------------------------'
