Computer Research Centrum, Ltd wrote, on 10/Dec/12 08:05 | Dec10:
I was looking at the Python 3.3.0 sourceswith a view to porting to the
QL with C68.
Will be porting of Perl instead Python easier and more appropriate for a QL
limited in its resources (speed, memory, ...)?
Perl was running quite well od old 68k Macintoshes.
J.D.
Excellent. Is that you Jonathan (Dent)?
For those who don't know Perl, as long as one steers clear of objects,
it is all very straightforward.
There are, of course, syntax differences, but the procedure/function
environment will be very familiar to SB users.
One gets used to '$' at beginning of variables surprisingly easily.
In my mind, other than objects, the regexps are the winning factor.
They make for very sophisticated character (and variable) matching.
Quite impossible to easy document, so even the programmer struggles to
interpret complicate ones after the event!
Oh and it is very very fast. The code is 'compiled' at run time and
will pick up structure issues etc.
Unlike SB it one can force declaration of variables.
That was a problem for me in SB. Variable typos often lurk unnoticed.
It would be good to implement apt as well. This gives easy access to
extension modules.
Tony
--
t...@firshman.co.uk http://firshman.co.uk
Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman
TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
