Re: Perl's Glory Days Are Behind It, But It Isn't Going Anywhere

Hi Georgios,

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 22:51:28 +0100
Georgios Magklaras <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 31/01/13 09:10, Johan Vromans wrote:
> > http://developers.slashdot.org/story/13/01/29/0235220/perls-glory-days-=
are-behind-it-but-it-isnt-going-anywhere
> >
> > We know we suck at marketing, but is there anything we are going to do
> > about it?
> >
> > -- Johan
> Did C ever make serious money? What was the evolution rate of C? Is C or=
=20
> not the basis of systems programming?
>=20
> My point is that a good language withstands time because its useful.=20
> Perl (5) is in use and will be in use. Not because is bad/good and/or=20
> Perl 6 will come into place, but due to a fact it has a domain. And Perl=
=20
> has a domain not because other languages cannot do what Perl does, but=20
> due to the fact they cannot do it the WAY Perl does.
>=20
> The way a language is constructed semantically has a one to one=20
> correspondence with the way your brain works. For some people, Perl's=20
> syntax hits a sweet spot and they stick to it. For others, it is=20
> confusing, alien and can - apparently - make you a bad programmer (I=20
> have seen bad programmers in every programming language I know, so=20
> that's not a characteristic of Perl).
>=20
> In the same way, people that parallel program, work with Intel's=20
> extensions/compilers, CUDA and/or Erlang. Try to convince an Erlang=20
> programmer that his language is obsolete. They will laugh at you and=20
> point out many examples.
>=20
> Conclusion: A language is walking down the road of obsolescence when its=
=20
> semantic structure becomes irrelevant to the way people think and its=20
> domain dies. Neither of that is true for Perl (5) and the whole shebang=20
> has very little to do with Perl 6. Frankly, I do not see any original=20
> point in this article, IMHO.
>=20

Have not read the original article, but I agree. BTW, on ##programming on
Freenode, people have been bitching about every language under the sun.

My signature quote this time is relevant, and is taken from
http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/COBOL-the-New-Age-Programming-Languag=
e/ ,
as a reference to Python=E2=80=99s home page where they used to boast that =
=E2=80=9CNASA uses
COBOL=E2=80=9D which while technically true, is not fully honest, because g=
iven NASA=E2=80=99s
history, budget, and diversity, it uses a very large number of old and new
programming languages and other technologies. Also see:

* http://xkcd.com/519/

( Moreover, NASA=E2=80=99s software development unit is just the tip of the=
 iceberg. )

But I guess I should not give a Midrash
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash ; =E2=80=9Cstudy=E2=80=9D - not =E2=
=80=9Cmid-rash=E2=80=9D ) to a joke.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

--=20
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
Rethinking CPAN - http://shlom.in/rethinking-cpan

NASA Uses COBOL.

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .