Re: Perl Doesn't Suck

On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 01:18:07PM -0500, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote:
> Adam Turoff [[email protected]] quoth:
> *>
> *>Nevertheless, a degenerate case for installing Perl never requires
> *>transfers or temporary disk space measured in quarter gigabytes.
> 
> Sure it can. 

Allow me to clarify: a degenerate case for installing a *single* *specific*
version of Perl never requires transfers or temporary disk space measured
in quarter gigabytes.

Mirroring all of CPAN is not a pre-requisite for installing a version
of Perl, multiple versions of Perl, etc.
 
> *>Worst-case-to-worst-case, Perl doesn't suck, and it's doing much
> *>better than Java.  I wonder which is easier to support post-install.
> 
> Perl can suck and often does for the newcomer who, when faced with trying
> to wade through all the XML modules on CPAN trying to figure out which one
> is which for what purpose, can be quite frustrated with getting things to
> work as advertised. 

That's not the issue here.

Chris and I are talking about the case where a user finds a piece
of software requiring (Perl|Java) and need to install the language
distribution as well as the software requiring that distribution
(or, a simpler case of installing a specific version of a language
distribution).  Wading through CPAN is not an issue here.

> Everything can suck given enough scrutiny.

Surely.  And if you want to believe that Perl sucks, please do.  

While installing Java this week, I stumbled across the "installation 
experience" and "supported platforms" aspects of a language and found
that Perl is doing remarkably well, even if no one takes the time to
say so.  I chronicled my experiences in detail to show how bad it can
be, and to highlight how remarkably well-engineered and supported Perl
is by comparison.

Z.