4 ms·

Perl is far less exotic than COBOL when compared to modern languages that are still in heavy use. It looks kinda like C or PHP and feels kinda like Python or Ru

by rory 6y ago

Perl is far less exotic than COBOL when compared to modern languages that are still in heavy use. It looks kinda like C or PHP and feels kinda like Python or Ruby. I've never written COBOL but it looks almost as foreign to me as a punchcard.

rswail 6y ago
Understanding the runes of Perl and the difference between a "$" and a "@" etc are a lot more exotic than "ADD A TO B GIVING C." or "IDENTIFICATION DIVISION." I think it's interesting you compare it to a punchcard, given that the 80 column limits and the fixed width layouts of COBOL (and FORTRAN) are entirely driven by punchcard layout.
- rory 6y ago
  Yeah maybe a better phrasing is "Perl has more in common with languages still in heavy use" since it also has its own quirks. Interesting about the layout-- admittedly I know very little about COBOL or FORTRAN. I'm just reacting to scans of example code.
- raiph 6y ago
  > Understanding the runes of Perl and the difference between a "$" and a "@" etc are a lot more exotic than "ADD A TO B GIVING C." or "IDENTIFICATION DIVISION." I disagree. "$" is understandable for just about every 2 year old on the planet[1] and understood by just about every developer on the planet, including the majority for whom English is not their first language. ("IDENTIFICATION DIVISION"? Why would you divide your name?) "@" is understandable for a 6 year old.[2] Calling such incredibly simple things "runes" and "exotic" is like calling "0" an exotic rune.[2] [1] "$" is just a visual/audio/semantic/mnemonic/symbol overlaying S for "Single" and I for "Item". According to replicated scientific studies an average English baby demonstrates understanding of this concept at around 22-24 months. I think a conclusion that a 2 year old could understand "$" is reasonable. [2] "@" is just a visual/audio/semantic/mnemonic/symbol overlaying "at" to indicate indexing, "a" to indicate "array", and "0" to indicate counting starts at zero. According to a 2018 scientific study[3] an average child has come to understand integer counting by the age of around 3 and a half, and is comfortable with counting from "0" at around 5-6 years of age. Perhaps the most challenging aspect is the notion of an "array"; but the whole point of having an "@" is to distinguish it from "$" without getting into details. I think a conclusion that a 6 year old could understand "@" more easily than they could understand addition is reasonable.
- jjav 6y ago
  I'll take a guess that you didn't grow up in the UNIX shell? perl syntax is actually highly intuitive because it copies nearly everything from pre-existing tools, shell scripts, sed, awk, and so on. perl just packaged it all into one cohesive tool. It was one of those languages where you barely need to read the manual because you can predict things because the syntax will be exactly what'd you'd guess it to be. All this, of course, if and only if you had previously grown up on shell, sed, awk and friends. For anyone who hasn't, I can totally see how perl seems like alien gobbledygook.

by rory 6y ago

rswail 6y ago

Understanding the runes of Perl and the difference between a "$" and a "@" etc are a lot more exotic than "ADD A TO B GIVING C." or "IDENTIFICATION DIVISION." I think it's interesting you compare it to a punchcard, given that the 80 column limits and the fixed width layouts of COBOL (and FORTRAN) are entirely driven by punchcard layout.

rory 6y ago
Yeah maybe a better phrasing is "Perl has more in common with languages still in heavy use" since it also has its own quirks. Interesting about the layout-- admittedly I know very little about COBOL or FORTRAN. I'm just reacting to scans of example code.
raiph 6y ago
> Understanding the runes of Perl and the difference between a "$" and a "@" etc are a lot more exotic than "ADD A TO B GIVING C." or "IDENTIFICATION DIVISION." I disagree. "$" is understandable for just about every 2 year old on the planet[1] and understood by just about every developer on the planet, including the majority for whom English is not their first language. ("IDENTIFICATION DIVISION"? Why would you divide your name?) "@" is understandable for a 6 year old.[2] Calling such incredibly simple things "runes" and "exotic" is like calling "0" an exotic rune.[2] [1] "$" is just a visual/audio/semantic/mnemonic/symbol overlaying S for "Single" and I for "Item". According to replicated scientific studies an average English baby demonstrates understanding of this concept at around 22-24 months. I think a conclusion that a 2 year old could understand "$" is reasonable. [2] "@" is just a visual/audio/semantic/mnemonic/symbol overlaying "at" to indicate indexing, "a" to indicate "array", and "0" to indicate counting starts at zero. According to a 2018 scientific study[3] an average child has come to understand integer counting by the age of around 3 and a half, and is comfortable with counting from "0" at around 5-6 years of age. Perhaps the most challenging aspect is the notion of an "array"; but the whole point of having an "@" is to distinguish it from "$" without getting into details. I think a conclusion that a 6 year old could understand "@" more easily than they could understand addition is reasonable.
jjav 6y ago
I'll take a guess that you didn't grow up in the UNIX shell? perl syntax is actually highly intuitive because it copies nearly everything from pre-existing tools, shell scripts, sed, awk, and so on. perl just packaged it all into one cohesive tool. It was one of those languages where you barely need to read the manual because you can predict things because the syntax will be exactly what'd you'd guess it to be. All this, of course, if and only if you had previously grown up on shell, sed, awk and friends. For anyone who hasn't, I can totally see how perl seems like alien gobbledygook.