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:
> :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.