Why use Perl when we've got Python?!
John W. Stevens
jstevens at basho.fc.hp.com
Fri Aug 13 23:03:29 EDT 1999
> In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> "John W. Stevens" <jstevens at basho.fc.hp.com> writes:
> :Polymorphism requires both OO training, and discipline to use, but if
> :used correctly, it is very powerful.
>
> No disagreements.
>
> But I can't help but wonder: Is this how you keep out 99% of the
> accidental programmers, the ones who use Perl?
Who says I keep anybody out of anything? I teach OO. Not C++, or
Smalltalk. . . OO.
> If you require OO training
> and discipline, then you set the bar at the gate untenably high.
An opinion. Duly noted, of course. But still an opinion.
> Perl remains proudly pedestrian in its roots.
What does that mean?
> It doesn't require a Computer
> Science degree to use.
Neither does Python. But, why in heaven's name would you talk first
about competence, then state it as a benefit that Perl can be used
by the untrained?
Why, in heaven's name, would you prefer Joe Blow (who has worked for
five years as a butcher) to perform your brain surgery, to a Medical
Doctor with a degree in Neuro Surgery?
> This, too, is a feature. Formal training is
> optional.
"Formal traing is optional"
Now, what defines the difference between "formal" and "informal"
training? And, how do you figure that OO is more difficult, more
formal than what-ever-it-is that you are talking about?
John S.
More information about the Python-list
mailing list