Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:30:40 -0400 From: Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: grog@lemis.com Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: TCL Message-ID: <199706200130.VAA13990@ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <199706190746.PAA00864@papillon.lemis.com> (grog@lemis.com)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> I also find that when I'm writing C code in Perl, I'm not using Perl >> effectively. Instead it's most effective to think in Perl terms >> when writing Perl, and in C terms when writing C. > Sure. That's one of my gripes. I don't think that the learning > effective use of the group (Perl,TCL,<insert your favourite here>) is > worth the trouble. I still don't follow you. My argument is that you think differently when you use different languages. Use the language that best describes what you're thinking for the problem. Don't use assembler or Fortran to solve the Towers of Hanoi, use Lisp. (I had to say that; last night I wrote a bit-manipulating assembler-oriented iterative solution. I'm not sure whether to be proud or horrified at the outcome.) Perl also changed the way I thought of programming to its extent. When I started hacking Perl, I discovered that I had been too caught up in formalism and modularity and whatnot to effectively hack small tools. Now I will use Perl for lots of piddly sysadmin-type jobs and CGI scripts which would take me exponentially longer to write in C, simply because C so sorely lacks effective string-handling capabilities. Lex was once characterized as the Swiss army knife of Unix programming. Awk was later described as the Swiss army chainsaw of Unix programming. I will submit that Perl is the Swiss army flamethrower of Unix programming. Fast (to write, not to run), effective, easy to use. I agree that people write ungodly programs in Perl, TCL, and any other language. These languages were made to design tools, not garages. Using them beyond their capabilities is foolish, because you will hit a wall. However, deciding against using a language because it cannot effectively be used for large projects is equally foolish, because you are throwing away good functionality and starting with wheels and pulleys and always having to build your own internal combustion engine each time. > I was unhappy enough to discover that I couldn't do everything in > LISP. ? Happy hacking, joelh -- http://www.wp.com/piquan --- Joel Ray Holveck --- joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu All my opinions are my own, not the Free Software Foundation's. Second law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation -- core dumped
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199706200130.VAA13990>