Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (757 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-factory] Learning Perl (Was: Re: [opensuse-factory] tagmedia question)
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 04:12:10PM +0200, Peter Jakobi wrote:
> The Good:

Not for me.

> - saying 1 means there are many idiomatic conventions to use
> Perl. Say just rewrite a C program 1:1 in perl, upto C's
> for and while statements, and your convention for translation
> a case cascade.

I don't rewrite C, becaue I can't do C.

> Say just rewrite a shell script using awk.

I can't do awk either.

> In both cases, perl's syntax allows you to retain most
> of the syntactic and semantic structure of say C or AWK.
> Perl even supports awk's BEGIN blocks, so you've to peek
> that the #! line on top to be sure you're reading perl...

That is nice. Well, if you know what people are talking about. I don't
know what a BEGIN block is.

> Or lisp. Perl has lists, and map (plus shortcuts like
> pop,unshift, grep, ...). cdr is missing, but you just use
> shift.

Chnese to me. I don't do Lisp.

> Lambda objects are function refs, etc. Everything's
> there, except the visual appeal of being able to have a
> syntactically necessary lines finishing with a block of
> 20+ closing parantheses.

Sounds interesting. Although I have no idea what it means.

> Saner persons than RMS however
> cite this as the sole reason to avoid lisp :).

I heard him speak unfortunatly at FOSDEM. Everybody is saner then RMS.
After listening to him I had an urge to walk into a store, buy XP Pro and
install it.

> perl baby talk's fine.
>
> Or a decide later an idiomatic open or die stanza followed
> by a schwartzian transform-resort of file data. What on
> the commandline would be something like map|sort|map.
> Functional programming and lisp also comes to mind.

Uhm. OK. (Or as they say in Germany "Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof."

> - obfuscation is easy. also unintentional obfuscation.
> So self-discipline is a bit more important than in more
> restrictive - or crippled - environments elsewhere.

For me reading somebody elses bash code looks already as if it was
obfuscationized code.

> - perl5 has support to create your own OO-"Language" on top of it.
> However it is decidedly no object-oriented language.
> [ok, this is opionated, but unless one has a SINGLE RIGHT one way
> to use e.g. inheritance and overload my parent's functions
> within a well-defined oo interface, the language just isn't
> oo. Just like C. Not if every one develops his/her own OO inheritance
> conventions. Heck, you can never be sure of object itself: does the modul
> I'd like to reuse use a scalar or a blessed hash as base for his objects??
>
> Saying1 vs. Perl5 = 1 : 0, Perl5 standing, but with hole shot in foot.]
>
> Python wins here, as well as that rumoured new language to be
> called perl 6. being able to _BREAK_ any perl5 syntactic rules.

Well, I don't do Python either.

> >Then I started to put in a "for" for the booting and copying and started to
> >make it more generic. A bit later added some features.
>
> Which is just fine when using perl for small, single-authored scripts...

Sure it is, if you know what you are doing and know perl. I am sure my
code would be better written in perl. If I would understand perl, I would
have just taken create_package_descr and edited it. It would have been a
lot easier, because makeSUSEdvd is nothing more then a wrap around it.

It would be also a lot easier to include tagmedia in it, instead of
leaving it as a seerate program.

However, I am not a programmer, nor will I ever be one. If at most I am a
mediocre scriptwriter. Again, perl will be a great langage, it is just not
for me.

houghi
--
Nutze die Zeit. Sie ist das Kostbarste, was wir haben, denn es
ist unwiederbringliche Lebenszeit. Leben ist aber mehr als Werk
und Arbeit, und das Sein wichtiger als das Tun - Johannes Müller-Elmau

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups