NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
several minutes ago. We don't need no stinkin' tactical nukes.
(By the way, do you have change for 10 million people?) --lwall
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Cheap shots (Score:2)
Comparing test numbers is a load of crap, and you know that. It's the sort of stupid advocacy that people complain about when applied to Perl and shouldn't be used to compare Perl favorably to anything else. It's really embarrassing when big Perl names spread this sort of shit around. It hurts the credibility of people who try to advocate Perl in a fair manner. Ruby doesn't have to lose for Perl to be useful.
If you want to make a valid point, talk about test coverage. You know this, though. You went for a cheap shot though, and that helps no one.
Let's not forget, that despite all its tests, Perl 5.10 didn't have enough to ensure smart matching worked.
Reply to This
Re: (Score:2)
You know, you could easily have phrased that without saying "shit" and "load of crap". It's really embarrassing when big Perl names act like this.
Re: (Score:2)
--
xoa
Re: (Score:1)
Who says Ruby has to lose? Who says anyone wants Ruby to lose? (Who even knows what that means?) I'd like to see Ruby much better tested. It's a nice language, but I've found its lack of a systemic testing culture very frustrating.