Why use Perl when we've got Python?!
John W. Stevens
jstevens at basho.fc.hp.com
Sat Aug 14 05:03:29 CEST 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
"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?
More information about the Python-list