4 ms·

You're right about the Python comment, and I edited it out. However, I would also say that you've provided no discussion of value in your comments. I at least b

by sreque 16y ago

You're right about the Python comment, and I edited it out. However, I would also say that you've provided no discussion of value in your comments. I at least back up my statements with correct supporting arguments, even if I sometimes use overly strong language in making them.

chromatic 16y ago
My point is simple: the past ten years of Perl development have changed the language and its ecosystem dramatically. You can still write Perl as you did in 2000 or 1994 or 1987, but the Perl community tends to use terms like "Modern Perl" and "Enlightened Perl" and "Perl Renaissance" to distinguish between code we know to be buggy and clunky and difficult to maintain and the code we write now that we know so much better. If you want to compare Python to Perl, compare Python 1.x to the ancient Perl that always comes up in these comparisons. (You may or may not deduct points from Python for breaking backward compatibility in the past near-decade.)
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- sreque 16y ago
  Then we don't have anything to argue about. I agree that modern Perl is a lot better than older perl, and that modules that fix perl, like perl5i, Coro, and Moose, enable you to write decent code using the language. I never tried to say otherwise. My point was, why bother, when you can use a language that doesn't need to be fixed in the first place? Life is so much simpler without all the extra accidental complexity.
  - chromatic 16y ago
    My point was, why bother, when you can use a language that doesn't need to be fixed in the first place? Because I'd rather have to add on Moose (something I can fix while remaining compatible with other libraries) than use a language in which variables automagically spring into existence (which I can't fix). Worse than that, while I'm sure that new Python 2 classes and metaclasses allow someone to write a better object system for Python, no one would ever use it. Thus my main non-syntactic gripe with Python is that the things I most want fixed either I can't fix and still have Python or no one in the Python community would ever support, because of the peer pressure to hew to one obvious way to do things.

by sreque 16y ago

chromatic 16y ago

My point is simple: the past ten years of Perl development have changed the language and its ecosystem dramatically. You can still write Perl as you did in 2000 or 1994 or 1987, but the Perl community tends to use terms like "Modern Perl" and "Enlightened Perl" and "Perl Renaissance" to distinguish between code we know to be buggy and clunky and difficult to maintain and the code we write now that we know so much better. If you want to compare Python to Perl, compare Python 1.x to the ancient Perl that always comes up in these comparisons. (You may or may not deduct points from Python for breaking backward compatibility in the past near-decade.)

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
sreque 16y ago
Then we don't have anything to argue about. I agree that modern Perl is a lot better than older perl, and that modules that fix perl, like perl5i, Coro, and Moose, enable you to write decent code using the language. I never tried to say otherwise. My point was, why bother, when you can use a language that doesn't need to be fixed in the first place? Life is so much simpler without all the extra accidental complexity.
- chromatic 16y ago
  My point was, why bother, when you can use a language that doesn't need to be fixed in the first place? Because I'd rather have to add on Moose (something I can fix while remaining compatible with other libraries) than use a language in which variables automagically spring into existence (which I can't fix). Worse than that, while I'm sure that new Python 2 classes and metaclasses allow someone to write a better object system for Python, no one would ever use it. Thus my main non-syntactic gripe with Python is that the things I most want fixed either I can't fix and still have Python or no one in the Python community would ever support, because of the peer pressure to hew to one obvious way to do things.