Why use Perl when we've got Python?!

[John W. Stevens]

> In comp.lang.perl.misc, 
>     "John W. Stevens" <jstevens at basho.fc.hp.com> writes:
> :> For example, that's one reason why when you want numeric ordering you
> :> use "==", but when you want lexical ordering you use an operator that
> :> looks completely different: "eq".
> :
> :This is a bad thing, not a good thing.  Again, it fails to be
> :polymorphic, to say nothing about failing to be OO.
> 
> Wrong.  I can assure you that not falling into the OO trap is considered
> a strength not a weakness.

:-)

> You obviously have been under the altar
> sipping at the communion wine at the Church of the Holy Object, whose
> credo is "I am Object -- the way, the truth, and the light.  Let no man
> come unto his data save through Me."  

I don't suppose you recognize exactly those same traits in yourself, as
you are making fun of in me?  Just a different God?

You worship at the altar of "freedom, and damn the costs or consequences!"

> Thank you, but Perl isn't going to force such idolatry down anyone's
> throat, and the fact that it doesn't force them down on their knees
> in worship of Lord Object cannot be counted against it.  

Perl does indeed "force" it's users.  It just forces something else
on them.

> You've got them if you want them.  You don't have them if you don't
> want them.  We call it "free will".  *THIS* is a a feature.

Now, just how do you use an OO Perl module, without using OO?  What is
the magic incantation to un-OO in Perl when I don't want to OO, and I'm
including an OO-Perl thingie?

Python, too, can be used as a purely procedural language, if you are
so inclined.

John S.