On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Alan Burlison wrote:
> Al Hopper wrote:
>
> > These days I write Python and find the resulting code far more readable
> > than Perl. The time to develop in Python or Perl is about the same - but
> > I've found even my own Perl code difficult to grok (in as little as) 2 or
> > 3 months down the road. My personal experience is that, the more
> > experienced a Perl developer is, the more difficult the resulting code is
> > to grok and really good Perl developers produce code that is almost
> > indecipherable.
> >
> > I'm not trying to start a Perl/Python war and too busy to participate in
> > one .... but, please consider alternatives other than Perl.
>
> It's got absolutely *nothing* to do with the language, it's all about
> coding style. Here's a case in point that came up only yesterday, a bit
> of python and a bit of perl that do the same thing - print a specific
> directory from the system search path, or print a blank line if the path
> can't be found:
>
> $ python -c 'import sys;print([p for p in sys.path if
> p.endswith("/site-packages")]+[""])[0]'
> /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages
>
> $ perl -e 'print((grep(m{/site_perl$}, @INC),"")[0],"\n")'
> /usr/perl5/site_perl
>
> Which is the easier to read? I'd say the perl version is (slightly)
> easier, not least because it is shorter and because perl treats regexps
> as first-class citizens of the language. However, that's not the point,
Agreed (+1 for Perl because it "treats regexps as first-class citizens of
the language"). But ... your supposition assumes that you already know
what "@INC" means!
> the point is that you could express both with a more 'traditional'
> iteration over an array ('for', 'while' etc) containing a nested
> conditional test and they'd look remarkably similar.
Agreed.
> I'm not a pythonhead, but I suspect that if I wrote python it would look
> very much like the perl I write (dumb-ass indentation rules aside). The
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A lot of developers see this as a learning block to getting up to speed
with Python. I agree that it is a learning block - but one that is
overcome in a matter on minutes - usually accomplished with the
simultaneous utterance of a bunch of 4 lettered words.
> point of either of the languages is that they allow you to be terse (and
> therefore "indecipherable"), but neither language forces you to do this.
Agreed. But there is a natural tendency for developers to continue to use
terse/indecipherable constructs once they (personally) have mastered
them.
> I suspect because of the relative ages of the languages there are fewer
> python propellerheads around than there are perl ones, so python tends
> to be written in a more long-winded way not because you can't cast
> spells in it, but because there aren't quite so many python wizards
> around (yet).
I can't agree with this - OTOH, one of the downsides of Python is that
subtle changes are made from one rev to another (2.2 -> 2.3 -> 2.4) which
is unhelp for the developer whose primary langauge is C or Java and who
uses Python for Q&D (Quick & Dirty) type scripts.
> If we are going to mandate a particular language, let's do so on
I would never mandate a particular language - but for Perl (heads) who
have not looked outside Perl for more that 12+ months, I would urge them
to re-evaluate their choice of preferred scripting language/environment.
> something other than the ability of expert users to write executable
> line noise in it.
Again - agreed.
No black/white answer :( - like most things in real life - a compromise.
Regards,
Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT
OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005
OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006
_______________________________________________
tools-discuss mailing list
tools-discuss@opensolaris.org
