4 ms·

I was a Perl developer/scripter for the better part of 3 years - wrote a 2-way LDAP<-> HRIS synchronization system in it, complete with customizeable Schemas.

I was a Perl developer/scripter for the better part of 3 years - wrote a 2-way LDAP<-> HRIS synchronization system in it, complete with customizeable Schemas. Then, 3 or so years into my Perl experience, in which I still needed to look at template code every time I did a HashOfArray/ArrayOfHash, I tripped across some python code explaining how everything was objects. Within a few seconds I tested that theory, by populating a list with dicts and voila - just worked. Close to the last day I ever touched Perl. The python language expansions that have come recently, f-strings, walrus operator, and now matching - are great in that they don't make the language more complex - all three of these are easily explainable in a few minutes to the novice, and once they understand it, they can quickly (and profitably) incorporate it into their code. I wan't there to be a steady drumbeat of these improvements that let me write more elegant code, more concisely. Try and find a single python developer who would give up their f-strings now.

adamc 6y ago
Yeah, this. I love Python, and I hated Perl. Even Java was a pleasure compared to Perl. At one time, a trainer was trying to tell us Ruby was the new hotness (2009 or 2010, I think). I liked Ruby OK, but Python seems cleaner and we stuck with it. I have not felt the slightest regret.
kbenson 6y ago
> in which I still needed to look at template code every time I did a HashOfArray/ArrayOfHash Honestly, that sounds like someone that didn't bother to learn what's actually going on and understand what the language was doing. I mean, that's fine, we all do that... but I wouldn't blame the language for that. Perl makes nested data structures very easy and obvious once you learn what's going on. You just need to actually learn it and not rely on the little shortcuts Perl allows you to use to never make that next step to learning exactly why. Perl will "just do what you mean" so much that it papers over some of the early learning friction points enough that they build up to a later point. At that point, people either throw up their hands and move on because it's annoying when some shortcut they've relied on isn't working in this one weird instance, or they learn what's really going on (Hint: it's almost always either about understanding references or context at this stage) and it's no longer a problem. > Try and find a single python developer who would give up their f-strings now. Things like f-strings and list comprehensions in Python are the exact thing that Python devs used to point out as too complex in other languages (I mean, f-strings look to be pretty much just string interpolation). I think that's evidence that perhaps a language isn't always best suited for all audiences. Python used to be aimed at learning and easy of understanding and use. Now that it's often more targeted for complex engineering projects, you get stuff sneaking in that was specifically avoided by design initially.
- ghshephard 6y ago
  "Honestly, that sounds like someone that didn't bother to learn what's actually going" - Yes, exactly! I never learned what was going on. I pinged our JAPH that was kind of my mentor, and asked how he had ever grokked it - and his answer was, he hadn't - he just yanked his template code each time as well. The point I'm trying to make is not that I'm a good or knowledgeable developer (neither of which I am, despite having written tens of thousands of lines of perl) - but that the core essence of Python, is that people can use it quickly and profitably without being one. The cognitive hurdle to start using objects in python is tiny - and, once you get that - a lot of the stuff that you would hope works, just does. The language is very friendly to novice coders, and it's lack of implicit (for the most part) actions avoids a lot of unclear side effect. For more complex projects, things like decorators and generators and type-hints, which are advanced, are available if you need them - but you can go a long way (sometimes forever) without ever touching them - that's not the case with simple data structures - you pretty much need to start working with HoA in perl if you want to do complex things, and I know people who have used perl for the better part of a decade, who have never done so - and were blocked from doing more interesting things.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    That saddens me. It's not actually that complicated, but I think Perl's usage numbers have degraded enough that unless you're frequenting one of the online spots where those knowledgeable about the language gather, you're unlikely to encounter them in the wild anymore, and thus aren't getting a useful explanation. The simple answer that probably would have solved almost all your problems is that you can use the reference syntax for defining things and it will look like and function the same as JavaScript 95% or more of the time, and the only time you'll need to do anything is when passing it to something that expects an actual array or hash. I mean, you can get away with taking JSON and changing colons into fat arrows and booleans into 0 and 1 and it will just work as a Perl data structure as is like 99.99% of the time. Data structure manipulation works similarly as well for the most part.
    - ghshephard 6y ago
singingfish 6y ago
sounds like you shoulda been using objects to bind data. Moo is one of the best OO toolkits out there. Can whip up really good long lived, testable, easy to understand stuff fast with extensive use of `lazy => 1`

adamc 6y ago

Yeah, this. I love Python, and I hated Perl. Even Java was a pleasure compared to Perl. At one time, a trainer was trying to tell us Ruby was the new hotness (2009 or 2010, I think). I liked Ruby OK, but Python seems cleaner and we stuck with it. I have not felt the slightest regret.

kbenson 6y ago

> in which I still needed to look at template code every time I did a HashOfArray/ArrayOfHash Honestly, that sounds like someone that didn't bother to learn what's actually going on and understand what the language was doing. I mean, that's fine, we all do that... but I wouldn't blame the language for that. Perl makes nested data structures very easy and obvious once you learn what's going on. You just need to actually learn it and not rely on the little shortcuts Perl allows you to use to never make that next step to learning exactly why. Perl will "just do what you mean" so much that it papers over some of the early learning friction points enough that they build up to a later point. At that point, people either throw up their hands and move on because it's annoying when some shortcut they've relied on isn't working in this one weird instance, or they learn what's really going on (Hint: it's almost always either about understanding references or context at this stage) and it's no longer a problem. > Try and find a single python developer who would give up their f-strings now. Things like f-strings and list comprehensions in Python are the exact thing that Python devs used to point out as too complex in other languages (I mean, f-strings look to be pretty much just string interpolation). I think that's evidence that perhaps a language isn't always best suited for all audiences. Python used to be aimed at learning and easy of understanding and use. Now that it's often more targeted for complex engineering projects, you get stuff sneaking in that was specifically avoided by design initially.

ghshephard 6y ago
"Honestly, that sounds like someone that didn't bother to learn what's actually going" - Yes, exactly! I never learned what was going on. I pinged our JAPH that was kind of my mentor, and asked how he had ever grokked it - and his answer was, he hadn't - he just yanked his template code each time as well. The point I'm trying to make is not that I'm a good or knowledgeable developer (neither of which I am, despite having written tens of thousands of lines of perl) - but that the core essence of Python, is that people can use it quickly and profitably without being one. The cognitive hurdle to start using objects in python is tiny - and, once you get that - a lot of the stuff that you would hope works, just does. The language is very friendly to novice coders, and it's lack of implicit (for the most part) actions avoids a lot of unclear side effect. For more complex projects, things like decorators and generators and type-hints, which are advanced, are available if you need them - but you can go a long way (sometimes forever) without ever touching them - that's not the case with simple data structures - you pretty much need to start working with HoA in perl if you want to do complex things, and I know people who have used perl for the better part of a decade, who have never done so - and were blocked from doing more interesting things.
- kbenson 6y ago
  That saddens me. It's not actually that complicated, but I think Perl's usage numbers have degraded enough that unless you're frequenting one of the online spots where those knowledgeable about the language gather, you're unlikely to encounter them in the wild anymore, and thus aren't getting a useful explanation. The simple answer that probably would have solved almost all your problems is that you can use the reference syntax for defining things and it will look like and function the same as JavaScript 95% or more of the time, and the only time you'll need to do anything is when passing it to something that expects an actual array or hash. I mean, you can get away with taking JSON and changing colons into fat arrows and booleans into 0 and 1 and it will just work as a Perl data structure as is like 99.99% of the time. Data structure manipulation works similarly as well for the most part.
  - ghshephard 6y ago

singingfish 6y ago

sounds like you shoulda been using objects to bind data. Moo is one of the best OO toolkits out there. Can whip up really good long lived, testable, easy to understand stuff fast with extensive use of `lazy => 1`