4 ms·
> ...but after having written several programs in Perl until they became unmaintainable (despite my good coding style), and then rewritten them in Ruby in somet
by kscaldef 17y ago
> ...but after having written several programs in Perl until they became unmaintainable (despite my good coding style), and then rewritten them in Ruby in something like 1/10th to 1/20th the lines... I've got no particular interest in spending time reading about how Perl is wonderful.
I agree with another poster. I'd love to see the data that you gathered.
I've worked fairly extensively with both Perl and Ruby, and I have a hard time imagining anything which is 10-20x shorter in Ruby than in Perl. I also have to question the maintainability assertion. Ruby and Perl are similar enough that I'm pretty sure I can take a "maintainable" program in either one and port it to the other with minimal changes and no noticable change in maintainability.
- tjic 17y ago> Ruby and Perl are similar enough that I'm pretty sure I can take a "maintainable" program in either one and port it to the other with minimal changes Without intending to flame, I can't imagine that you'd say this if you've used some of the more powerful techniques in Ruby. If you've used techniques X,Y, and Z in Perl, you can find them in Ruby. ... but unless you think in a Lisp-like way, you won't even realize that techniques G' and E''' exist in Ruby, but not in Perl.
- berntb 17y agoI have written some lisp-code in my days, what are those features missing in Perl?
- kscaldef 17y agoSome content would be nice, rather than the implication that I'm just an ignorant blub-er. So, once again, how about some of that data you say you collected to back up what you're saying? Which "more powerful techniques" are you talking about?