All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
use Perl Log In
chromatic (983)
(email not shown publicly)
http://wgz.org/chromatic/
Syntax is the Only Learning Curve?
Modern languages have so many features that they must keep the grammar small in order to reduce the learning curve. I guarantee that the best state-of-the-art languages of the future will do the same. For this reason alone, Python is clearly better than Ruby or Perl.
Clark Maurer, Comparing Python to Perl and Ruby
I almost hesitated to link this one, because Clark works on a text editor and has some idea of what it takes to provide syntax highlighting and language support. However, you know the rules of the Internet: if you say something silly, expect someone to call you on it (sadly, even if it's satire).
By the criterion in the quoted paragraph alone, bf is clearly better than even Scheme, but loses out to the Universal Turing Machine. Python can't even compare; its grammar is over a dozen lines long.
The assertion that keeping a grammar small reduces the learning curve of a language with lots of features baffles me. No matter how much syntax fetishists pound their fists on the table, call/cc just isn't immediately obvious to novices simply because Scheme has uniform prefix syntax. The other assertion that Ruby is difficult to learn because yield means something different than in other languages makes me think that Dylan should have more users than Lisp. (Ouch.)
chromatic's second rule of programming language syntax is You can always look up syntax in the manual.
--Larry Wall in doarg.c from the perl source code
Huh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's true for authors of editors at least... (Score:1)
God knows it makes life easier.
My (modified and I hope more accurate) argument would be that a simpler syntax makes writing editors and other tools easier, and the quality of the tools make learning and using a language easier.
Perl doesn't do well on that metric either
Re: (Score:2)
I read some of this article and man, it's got screwy logic. Like "variables are global by default" is bad. Why? There's no objective truth there. And if he doesn't like it, use strict and the problem goes away. BFD.
And then there was this gem:
Yet
Re: (Score:1)
Yup, pretty much.
I'd say there's really not any useful points to recover from that article, except what we already know about the relationship between grammar and tool quality.
LADs and LASSes (Score:1)
grammar: Language Acquisition Device
tools: Language Acquisition Support System
Old prejudices die hard (Score:2)
The assertion that keeping a grammar small reduces the learning curve of a language with lots of features baffles me.
It shouldn't baffle you. It's an old prejudice, and it needs to be examined in context.
It dates back to the bad old days, when computers were small, languages were simple and static, keyboards sucked, no one had good typing skills, and programmers had to use different languages periodically. Or, worse yet, they had to switch between this quirky extended version of a pre-standardized language and that quirky but differently extended version of the same pre-standardized language.
The hardest thing t
Re: (Score:1)
I get the feeling a fair few of the people who say these things have only used one or two languages in the Algol family and haven't ventured much outside the realm of procedural/OO programming. Maybe I'm lucky that my first programming language was C-64 BASIC and I switch
Re: (Score:2)
It really is a pity that people with such shallow experiences have such superficial reactions to different programming idioms.
It really is a pity that people with no understanding of foreign policy hold court on what their nation's military strategy should be.
It really is a pity that people with no background in either mathematics or economics have such shallow views on foreign trade.
This problem is not endemic to us. These people are idiots. There is no chance in changing their mind, or educating them by pointing out the latent prejudices in their arguments, or any other means for that matter. Just walk away.
Some python devs... (Score:1)
Oddly enough, I don't. I guess there must be something wrong with me.
To the topic, I think people just confuse syntax and semantics. I'd personally also agree with the post you published yesterday, that lisp/scheme has a much easier to understand "syntax."
Ordinary morality is for ordinary people. -- Aleister Crowley
manual? no, seriously? (Score:1)
rjbs
Re: (Score:1)
Programming Ruby 1e [rubycentral.com] is available online for free, and it's recent up to Ruby 1.6. Why would you want an installed version? You're not on an airplane! You're not on a bus! C'mon, old timer. Get on the trolley.
Re: (Score:1)
Whatever, I don't ever program in Ruby, just Ruby-powered DSLs.
rjbs
Re: (Score:1)
The Guy does not even know his *python*... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. A programmer who continually focuses on the syntax of the language is like a writer who can't remember how to put together sentences. Don't expect great results.