use Perl

• C# Boasts (Score:1)

  by gmillerd (8421)

  How much of that is the interface vs the language? I think your giving C# too much credit in and of itself, though in the end the C# developer is more agile because of it your right. Its a loss to Perl that we don't have the interface to do such things (or perhaps other things more worthwhile and fundamental). Not something that a half-baked eclipse setup or emacs mode fixes obviously. The Visual Studio setup is quite powerful for that side of the fence, even if at times they are abstracting users from t
  • Re: (Score:2)

    by Ovid (2709)

    I think a lot of it is in the language. Perl has grown up and unfortunately it's still in the clothes it wore as a teenager and they don't fit well. Many of the things the C# and Java communities can do work because the languages have a regular syntax and introspection.
    • Re:C# Boasts (Score:1)

      by Aristotle (5147) <pagaltzis@gmx.de> on 2008.01.27 3:44 (#60571) Homepage Journal

      I think the obvious moral equivalent to static introspection in static languages is dynamic programming (open classes, closures, eval) in dynamic languages. Instead of clicking buttons in an IDE that generates code for you, you write code against an API that abstracts away a bunch of metaprogramming. The difference is that you are not limited by your tools in how far and fast you can go because you can always abstract out further from the basis you start with.

      Of course, the flipside is that it’s expedient for 100 projects to write only the 1/15th of the abstraction functionality that for their own needs require, so in the end there’s a lot of partial duplication of work spread around and no one has a single rock-solid tool available to bootstrap future work. To a smaller extent, it is the problem Lisp faces [lambdassociates.org].

      Reply to This

      Parent