3 ms·

Larry Wall also says that the P can equally be validated as "Pathetic". And it's a lowercase Perl, not PERL. Source: the Camel book.

vorg 12y ago
The P in perl also comes from the P in BCPL, a language from 1966, also according to Larry Wall. And from BCPL came, in order... * B language * C, and its statically-typed "C" derivatives C++, Java, C#, ObjectiveC * P for perl, and its dynamically-typed cousins and derivatives Python, PHP, Ruby, etc * L for whatever's next, must be the final victory of Lisp
- anonbanker 12y ago
  [citation needed]
  - vorg 12y ago
    > Source: the Camel book > [citation needed] You didn't have a citation on your own quote when I responded to yours without a citation. Perhaps you should have written "Whoops, I neglected to add the source of my quote when you replied but have done now. I can't, however, find the source of yours -- where did you get it?". As for my quote about the acronym of BCPL being a premonition of the languages after it, I read it somewhere sometime before 1997 which was the last time I programmed in Perl.
    - anonbanker 12y ago
      So, we've confirmed that: * You maybe programmed in Perl once in '97. * You didn't know the difference between PERL and Perl. * You don't know what the camel book is (Programming Perl by O'Reilly), and have never even read the first chapter. * you have no citation for your BCPL statement.
jeffdavis 12y ago
Thank you for the information, but it doesn't really detract from my point. Anyone going to perl5 around 2000 was under the impression that it was a very practical language.
- anonbanker 12y ago
  I was one of the people championing a Pathetically Eclectic Rubbish Language back in 2000, and I was definitely not alone. But you win points for making a "No True Scotsman" Fallacy[1]. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

vorg 12y ago

The P in perl also comes from the P in BCPL, a language from 1966, also according to Larry Wall. And from BCPL came, in order... * B language * C, and its statically-typed "C" derivatives C++, Java, C#, ObjectiveC * P for perl, and its dynamically-typed cousins and derivatives Python, PHP, Ruby, etc * L for whatever's next, must be the final victory of Lisp

anonbanker 12y ago
[citation needed]
- vorg 12y ago
  > Source: the Camel book > [citation needed] You didn't have a citation on your own quote when I responded to yours without a citation. Perhaps you should have written "Whoops, I neglected to add the source of my quote when you replied but have done now. I can't, however, find the source of yours -- where did you get it?". As for my quote about the acronym of BCPL being a premonition of the languages after it, I read it somewhere sometime before 1997 which was the last time I programmed in Perl.
  - anonbanker 12y ago
    So, we've confirmed that: * You maybe programmed in Perl once in '97. * You didn't know the difference between PERL and Perl. * You don't know what the camel book is (Programming Perl by O'Reilly), and have never even read the first chapter. * you have no citation for your BCPL statement.

jeffdavis 12y ago

Thank you for the information, but it doesn't really detract from my point. Anyone going to perl5 around 2000 was under the impression that it was a very practical language.

anonbanker 12y ago
I was one of the people championing a Pathetically Eclectic Rubbish Language back in 2000, and I was definitely not alone. But you win points for making a "No True Scotsman" Fallacy[1]. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman