From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 27 21:49:06 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25B416A405 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 21:49:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kline@tao.thought.org) Received: from tao.thought.org (dsl231-043-140.sea1.dsl.speakeasy.net [216.231.43.140]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93DFA43D45 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 21:49:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kline@tao.thought.org) Received: from tao.thought.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tao.thought.org (8.13.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k3RLmvJ2002764; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:48:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kline@tao.thought.org) Received: (from kline@localhost) by tao.thought.org (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id k3RLmt6t002763; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:48:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kline) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:48:54 -0700 From: Gary Kline To: Giorgos Keramidas Message-ID: <20060427214854.GA2601@thought.org> References: <20060427024158.GA71123@thought.org> <20060427031043.GA69851@gothmog.pc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060427031043.GA69851@gothmog.pc> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Organization: Thought Unlimited. Public service Unix since 1986. X-Of_Interest: Observing 19++ years of service to the Unix community Cc: Gary Kline , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: scripting languages... X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 21:49:09 -0000 On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 06:10:43AM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2006-04-26 19:41, Gary Kline wrote: > > > > Hi People, > > I am NOT trying to start any kind of flame debate, but would > > like to know what real advantage perl has over the newer > > so-called all-in-one language, ch. (Other than the obvious > > fact that there are literally billions of lines of perl existant.) > > Don't you really mean ``C#'' by writing ``ch''? The only thing I recall reading about C# is that it was a DOS/Win C++ ish language. ch is a C/C++ scripting language that is like /bin/sh only with C syntax. Some C wizards created a perl regex library for ch; thus my question. I like the C "main(int argc, char *argv[])" intro or starting-point. main() has to be there in C. Given argc and argv, I can hack away freely. /bin/sh, /bin/csh, and perl's lack if arg[cv] means that I have to think about how-to grab the arguments to a binary. Script ot ./a.out. > > Perl seems ubiquitous these days. Every operating system I regularly > have to use (Linux, BSD or Solaris, in my case) has a Perl > implementation that works the same way 90% of the time. When it > doesn't, there's almost certainly a CPAN module that does the trick. > > $ uname -v > FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT #0: Thu Apr 20 06:26:59 EEST 2006 \ [ ... ] > Linux XXXX 2.6.10 #1 Thu Dec 30 03:01:16 EET 2004 i686 GNU/Linux > $ perl --version | grep '^This' > This is perl, v5.8.8 built for i486-linux-gnu-thread-multi You're a brave man, messing with 7-current!! The fact that perl is everywhere is in its favor; perl gurus can deal with argc/argv in their *sleep*. I can't; but it might interest you that many years ago I ported perl from the Sun-3 to an IBM AIX 3090 (with all 6 CPU's). Worked fine. ...Still. for thinks of any complexity, I'll grab one of my prefab C skeletons and hack away. > > The biggest advantage of Perl for me right now is that ``A Fairly Modern > Version is Just There(TM)'', wherever I have to work :) > Makes sense. gary -- Gary Kline kline@thought.org www.thought.org Public service Unix