Why use Perl when we've got Python?!
John W. Stevens
jstevens at basho.fc.hp.com
Sat Aug 14 05:02:55 CEST 1999
> 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
> 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
More information about the Python-list