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:
> :But in a test where programmers are ignorant of each, Python is
> :the prefered choice . . . *EXCEPT* where the programmers were
> :experienced C programmers.
> 
> Well what else are you going to get?  BASIC programmers?  Now those
> are clever folks for you!  Of course most programmers are C (or C++)
> programmers.

Sigh.  Not "of course".  There are quite a few programmers, now, who
don't have a C/Unix background.

And, though I failed to mention it (I was trying to be a little bit
light), many of those C programmers came around after a while.

> It's the only real-world langauge that gets the jobs
> done in millions of environments.  Every CompSci student should be
> proficient at C/C++.  Anything else is fluff.  Beneficial, but fluff.

Wow.  Strong words.

I note, with some sadness, that you failed to mention Fortran or
Cobol, languages that also get the job done, in millions of
real world environments.  Fortran and Cobol are fluff, hunh?

> I don't care whether they're proficient at six other languages, and
> in fact, I hope they know those six others, but C/C++ is what counts.
> What kind of "programmers" are you talking about?

Real programmers.  Those who do it for a living.  Some do C, others do
C++, yet others use Cobol, Fortran, Visual Basic, Objective-C, assembler,
Lisp, Prolog, Pascal, etc.

The whole world is *NOT* C.

> I think your newsreader is buggy.  Better fix it.

My news reader works fine.  Your news server or your news reader are
flawed.  Better fix 'em. . .

John S.