Perl Vs Python, Associative arrays, regex, and other considerations.

[Cameron Laird]

In article <p4Q8a.22668$0L3.9643793 at news2.news.adelphia.net>,
Bob X <bobx at linuxmail.org> wrote:
>"Cameron Laird" <claird at lairds.com> wrote in message
>news:v5sgg22lphoh1f at corp.supernews.com...
>> In article <x7el5tu2q7.fsf at guru.mired.org>, Mike Meyer  <mwm at mired.org>
>wrote:
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> >About equal. Both can be interfaced to other languages through C, you
>> >can wrap C and C++ libraries for both with SWIG, and both have a
>> >number of guis available, with tcl/tk being popular on both.
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> Mike, we disagree.  While I think enough of GUIfied Perl
>> to maintain the authoritative FAQ for Perl/Tk, my view is
>> that there's no comparison with the breadth of toolkit
>> bindings Python offers.  PyQt, wxPython, ...  make for a
>> stronger effective range of choices than I see from any
>> other language, including C.
>> --
>Not that I am arguing one way or another, but Perl has binding to those
>(mentioned) as well. True?
>
>

Nope.  PerlQt's usable with release 3, but juvenile compared to PyQt.
wxPerl is at version 0.12.  The FLTK binding's no more than an exper-
iment.  Perl/Tk never worked under MacOS.  I admit that Gtk-Perl's
more active than I used to predict.  I've lost track of the maturity
of Perl XPCOM; I know it used to be a bit fragile.  And so on.

It could be that I'm not current.  As of a couple of years ago, Python
bindings were considerably more *serious* than their Perl homologues;
Pypeople constructed working applications with them.
-- 

Cameron Laird <Cameron at Lairds.com>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal:  http://phaseit.net/claird/home.html