zentara [2003-06-03 08:05]:

On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:26:31 +0200 Stanislav Valasek wrote:

The other languages may be good or even better than Perl at certain things, but the above reasons should point you toward Perl.

"Python is what Perl should have been." A rough metric: How many people have switched from Perl to Python. A: Many. How many people have voluntarily switched from Python to Perl? A: One was reported, but upon investigation, he could not be found. ;) Python has lots of modules and a large code base also. Not as large as Perl's but enough to help a great deal. Python versus Perl Of the languages discussed here, Python is closest to Perl. The two can be used in similar roles, although the philosophies that determined the designs of the languages are quite different. I knew and liked Perl long before I knew Python. I now use Python for everything I previously used Perl for, so that should give you some idea what this section will say. Without being critical of Perl, I believe Python is the natural successor to Perl. Both languages offer lists, hash tables, object-oriented programming, excellent string handling, and other high-level features. The major difference is conceptual simplicity. Python was built from the ground up as an extensible, structured, object-oriented language; it draws on languages such as C++ and Modula-3 for foundations. Perl was built originally as a replacement for UNIX shell languages, and draws on languages such as Bourne shell, sed, and awk for inspiration. Higher-level features were added later, as it became apparent that the language was being used in areas far beyond what had originally been envisioned. This difference shows up in many aspects of the two languages: In Python, everything -- numbers, strings, lists, hashes, file-objects, and compiled code -- is an object, and can be passed around easily; in Perl, lists and hashes must be cast to scalars to pass them into a function, and then they must be cast back to lists or hashes to be used. In Python, exceptions and exception handlers are an integral part of the language; Perl can achieve the same effect only by encapsulating a call in an eval statement, which produces more awkward code. In Perl, only a string may be used as a key into a hash table; in Python, almost anything can be used. Passing arguments into functions is cleaner and more powerful in Python than in Perl; Python permits named arguments, default argument values, and an number of other things that Perl does not provide. The above is part of the language comparisons in _The Quick Python Book_.

Derek Fountain [2003-06-04 01:06]:

...

"Python is what Perl should have been."

The Perl6 team are currently redesigning the base language and they aren't making it look like Python.

This is a surprise? Betting on a tiger becoming spotted is not a good bet.

...

A rough metric: How many people have switched from Perl to Python. A: Many. How many people have voluntarily switched from Python to Perl? A: One was reported, but upon investigation, he could not be found. ;)

We look forward to seeing the evidence to support these two statements. :o)

One could do a poll in the relevant newsgroups. I'm too lazy.

Python doesn't have anywhere near the depth of module support that Perl has.

Have you run into a situation where there is no appropriate module for Python but there is for Perl? Of course such situations are possible, but I wonder how often they occur?

...

The above is part of the language comparisons in _The Quick Python Book_.

...and is therefore completely and totally biased.

He was fluent in Perl and gave it up for Python. Then he wrote a book about Python. Does that make his viewpoint worthless? I don't think so.

Python has much better structure than Perl, and therefore makes a better language for writing large programs and applications. Perl is much tighter, and has a much more efficient syntax. That makes it harder to master, but also makes it a much more efficient tool for a programmer who needs to solve a specific limited problem quickly. I've used Perl for years and Python quite a lot more recently. So far, IMHO, the only thing which Python is obviously better at is building GUI based applications. Python/Qt is a superb combination of power and simple convenience. Python was also much easier to learn.

"Tight" syntax facilitates writing unmaintainable code. It's excellent for throw-away scripts, though, and Harms says as much in his book.

The answer to the original poster's question, though, is still Tcl. For simplicity and power for solving general problems, as well as GUI work, it leaves both Perl and Python standing.

I don't follow this conclusion because, IMO, the poster didn't give enough information to conclude that Tcl is his best choice. What if he needs more than small programs? Tcl then becomes a suboptimal choice. Harms ranks 7 languages in 7 categories, and the only 2 where Tcl ranked above Python is in GUI coding and development environment. Python ranked above Tcl in 3. Do you disagree with his assessment? The bottom line for me is that the original poster should look at Perl, Python, and Tcl and make his own choice. -rex

On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:32:23 +0800 Derek Fountain wrote:

...

...

...

"Python is what Perl should have been."

The Perl6 team are currently redesigning the base language and they aren't making it look like Python.

This is a surprise? Betting on a tiger becoming spotted is not a good bet.

Exactly. Nothing wrong with the tiger. Stripes work for a lot of things. So the quote is garbage.

...

Have you run into a situation where there is no appropriate module for Python but there is for Perl? Of course such situations are possible, but I wonder how often they occur?

From what I'm reading about Perl6 development, it is to be based on the "parrot engine", which will allow incorporation of python code seemlessly into perl6 scripts. That would make Perl6 more of a mongoose, than a tiger. :-)

-- use Perl; #powerful programmable prestidigitation

On Wednesday 04 June 2003 01:46, rex wrote:

Python versus Perl <snip> The major difference is conceptual simplicity. Python was built from the ground up as an extensible, structured, object-oriented language; it draws on languages such as C++ and Modula-3 for foundations.

This is true.

Perl was built originally as a replacement for UNIX shell languages, and draws on languages such as Bourne shell, sed, and awk for inspiration.

This is not true. The argument would be more appropriate that Perl was built from the ground up as a more accessible (hence its replication of some shell-like features and the ease of using regular expressions) tool than the C language from which much of its syntactical constructs are derived. It is far closer to C in concept than it is to shell languages. A more accurate summary of the differences would be to compare the use of C (with its analagous partner being Perl) versus the use of C++ (with its partner being Python). That difference plays itself out in the choice of one language (Python) being more useful for larger projects, due to its object-oriented foundation (OOP has always seemed much more contrived in Perl, much more natural in Python); similarly, Perl is much more useful than Python for smaller, more procedural tasks where one doesn't want to have to bother with the overhead of OOP. Each language has its merits.

The above is part of the language comparisons in _The Quick Python Book_.

The "Gospel according to Python," no doubt? : ) - Thomas Long -- Using SuSE Linux 8.2