4 ms·

> So your complaint is really that you have to install stuff to get better defaults in Perl? :-) No, my point is that if you compare it to another programming

> So your complaint is really that you have to install stuff to get better defaults in Perl? :-) No, my point is that if you compare it to another programming language simply as a language, it is basically missing a major feature. If you take Ruby, Python, and Perl, and line them up next to each other simply as languages, Perl is at the bottom of the pile on it's own merits where OOP is concerned. > Are you saying you don't like strict? Even if I use strict, good software development practice would dictate using a lexically scoped variable at all times unless I really need something else. That's one of the reasons lexical scoping is the default in so many languages at this point.

__david__ 16y ago
> If you take Ruby, Python, and Perl, and line them up next to each other simply as languages, Perl is at the bottom of the pile on it's own merits where OOP is concerned. Reminds me of a Larry Wall quote: "I don't really know much about Python. I only stole its object system for Perl 5. I have since repented." Really, Perl's native OO stuff just lacks syntactic sugar. "Bless" is admittedly weird. And you have to write "new" yourself. If you get over those 2 things, it's really quite the same as everything else.
berntb 16y ago
>>if you compare it to another programming language simply as a language Perl is extensible by design. Your "point" of refusing to accept that is just strange. If you can't handle it, use something else. >>good software development practice As __david__ noted, you're just strange here. Variables really should be declared, as I noted before, just because of spelling problems. That is good software practice. Edit: I might be missing the point re "strict", but you can't explain it to either __david__ or chromatic, either. :-) And it seems your "point" about downloadable extensions is that you don't have anything to complain about without that arbitrary limitation.
- grammaton 16y ago
  >Perl is extensible by design. Your "point" of refusing to accept that is just strange. If you can't handle it, use something else. I think you're missing my point entirely. And I can "handle" it just fine since I've been using Perl for years now. >Variables really should be declared, as I noted before, just because of spelling problems. That is good software practice. Again, you're missing my point completely.

__david__ 16y ago

> If you take Ruby, Python, and Perl, and line them up next to each other simply as languages, Perl is at the bottom of the pile on it's own merits where OOP is concerned. Reminds me of a Larry Wall quote: "I don't really know much about Python. I only stole its object system for Perl 5. I have since repented." Really, Perl's native OO stuff just lacks syntactic sugar. "Bless" is admittedly weird. And you have to write "new" yourself. If you get over those 2 things, it's really quite the same as everything else.

berntb 16y ago

>>if you compare it to another programming language simply as a language Perl is extensible by design. Your "point" of refusing to accept that is just strange. If you can't handle it, use something else. >>good software development practice As __david__ noted, you're just strange here. Variables really should be declared, as I noted before, just because of spelling problems. That is good software practice. Edit: I might be missing the point re "strict", but you can't explain it to either __david__ or chromatic, either. :-) And it seems your "point" about downloadable extensions is that you don't have anything to complain about without that arbitrary limitation.

grammaton 16y ago
>Perl is extensible by design. Your "point" of refusing to accept that is just strange. If you can't handle it, use something else. I think you're missing my point entirely. And I can "handle" it just fine since I've been using Perl for years now. >Variables really should be declared, as I noted before, just because of spelling problems. That is good software practice. Again, you're missing my point completely.