Is PERL good for a linguist new to programming?

[A. Sinan Unur]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in

So you say that it's futile for me to continue studying it?

I had to look up his message in Google. Note that he did not say
anything of substance except to complain about 'Uri and his ilk'.

Anyone with a capacity for logical thinking can program. It takes time
and practice. It takes learning from mistakes.

The good thing about programming is the instant feedback loop. At the
lowest level, perl will tell you if you have made a syntax error.
However, it is possible have a program that perl will accept but does
not do what you want. Then, you have to think harder about how to
communicate what you want within the language. When you have a program
that seems to do what you want, it is usually possible to improve on it
by making it more succinct, by modifying the flow etc.

That is, programming is very close to writing.

When you eventually post programming questions here, your questions and
proposed solutions will be critiqued. Expect that. You'd do well to take
those critiques seriously (in terms of improving your skills).

Besides, did you notice the circular reasoning in "it's unrealistic that
you would pick up programming without a background in it." How does one
get a background in something without trying and doing first without a
background?

Don't let this kind of silliness stop you from installing Perl and
getting started (see http://www.ebb.org/PickingUpPerl/)

Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <[email protected]>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

comp.lang.perl.misc guidelines on the WWW:
http://www.rehabitation.com/clpmisc/

 

[Uri Guttman]

pp> Well, thank you all for keeping faith in me
pp> I'm a translator originally. The thing is that I have several ideas
pp> regarding several small modules like dictionaries or thesauruses that
pp> I would like to materialise. And yes, I do realise that it's a very
pp> long way to start writing my own programs from scratch.

as i said, you have the correct attitude and goals. anyone with basic
logical skills and the interest can learn to program. the basics are
very easy. as i said the hard part is scaling your knowledge or the
problem space.

pp> I have become inspired to get into computational linguistics after my
pp> BA thesis where I tested various concordance-based tools and how they
pp> cope with translating collocations.

those types of tools aren't hard programming problems IMO. and they are
very easily done in perl which is great for complex text analysis.

pp> But I also see learning Perl as a mental challenge for me. I have
pp> always wanted to know a programming language and I always envied
pp> people who had absolutely no problems with solving mathemathical
pp> problems. Having said that, I'm not aspiring to be the next Dijkstra,
pp> I just have some personal purposes for doing that. Nuff said.

the fact you mentioned dijkstra (however you learned about him) is a
good sign!

uri

 

[p.podmostko]

pp> Well, thank you all for keeping faith in me
pp> I'm a translator originally. The thing is that I have several ideas
pp> regarding several small modules like dictionaries or thesauruses that
pp> I would like to materialise. And yes, I do realise that it's a very
pp> long way to start writing my own programs from scratch.

as i said, you have the correct attitude and goals. anyone with basic
logical skills and the interest can learn to program. the basics are
very easy. as i said the hard part is scaling your knowledge or the
problem space.

pp> I have become inspired to get into computational linguistics after my
pp> BA thesis where I tested various concordance-based tools and how they
pp> cope with translating collocations.

those types of tools aren't hard programming problems IMO. and they are
very easily done in perl which is great for complex text analysis.

pp> But I also see learning Perl as a mental challenge for me. I have
pp> always wanted to know a programming language and I always envied
pp> people who had absolutely no problems with solving mathemathical
pp> problems. Having said that, I'm not aspiring to be the next Dijkstra,
pp> I just have some personal purposes for doing that. Nuff said.

the fact you mentioned dijkstra (however you learned about him) is a
good sign!

uri

--
Uri Guttman ------ (e-mail address removed) -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
--------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------

Thank you for all good karma from you guys! I've actually started
O'Reilly's "Learning Perl" but I've found the "Elements of Perl
Programming" and Im going to start from that one instead if its said
to be so good for beginners.

Surprisingly, the MA translation courre in UCL in London has a module
on scripting and general programming and Im going to take it
(hopefully not for my own demise).

Wish me luck

 

[Gregg Hastings]

The good thing about programming is the instant feedback loop. At the
lowest level, perl will tell you if you have made a syntax error.
However, it is possible have a program that perl will accept but does
not do what you want. Then, you have to think harder about how to
communicate what you want within the language. When you have a program
that seems to do what you want, it is usually possible to improve on it
by making it more succinct, by modifying the flow etc.

That is, programming is very close to writing.

Hi list.. First post.

The above seems to be my problem.. I have the desire to program. I read
and play with examples. I even understand the mechanics behind a lot of
it already.. (currently ch4 llama) . My hurdle seems to be the
creativity and allowance perl allows. I'm always looking for the 1+1=2
solution to the problem at hand and get buried there.. I suppose soon
enough and when I at least finish the book I might open up to the idea
of doing 'what works for me'.

To tryin' <ching>

Gregg

 

[Franken Sense]

In Dread Ink, the Grave Hand of Uri Guttman Did Inscribe:

FS> Uri and his ilk are why I would advise against thinking you can
FS> conquer the many idioms of perl by relying on usenet. Post a few
FS> more questions as you supplement your study and watch their tone
FS> slip as you don't follow Uri's life advice.

the fact you aren't learning perl quickly yourself is no reason to rant
about how usenet works or doesn't work. you have posted forever about a
trivially simple problem and have taken forever to grasp the simplest
perl idioms. you ignored coding and educational advice, you constantly
seem to compare perl ops to similar ops in c and can't see the
differences. your views on programming, and training aren't valid so why
did you jump in here? i can't wait for keel to stick his nose in too.

FS> clp.misc varies like any usenet group. Doesn't seem to be many
FS> OP's and Uri is front and center: hmmm.

huh?? try to make some sense.

FS> Other times, it's been nice. What's really helped me this time
FS> around is that I have a sysadmin buddy who looks at this stuff
FS> with me. I don't regret the fifty dollars I laid out for
FS> _Programming Perl_. YMMV.

so ask him to train you.

FS> BTW, I think it's unrealistic that you would pick up programming without a
FS> background in it. My $.02 .

speak for yourself. you have some programming background and can't pick
up basic perl that has been spoonfed to you. comment operator anyone?

uri

To OP: this is Uri in his usual tone. If you can read this while supposing
yourself to be the second person without wanting to tell him to get bent,
then clp.misc is for u and uri is ur man.
--
Frank

Most of us here in the media are what I call infotainers...Rush Limbaugh is
what I call a disinfotainer. He entertains by spreading disinformation.
~~ Al Franken

 

[Uri Guttman]

FS> Perl, with its panoply of odd, unpronounceable symbols, is as
FS> Polish-looking a syntax as I can think of.

please stop making comments on perl. you are not qualified to make
them. if you think perl is polish, then you haven't seen apl, lisp or
many other langs so stop making ignorant comments. yes, i said ignorant
since you don't know much computer science in general then you have no
basis from which you can make stupid comments.

just leave this thread and don't try to help anyone with perl for a good
long while.

uri

 

[Franken Sense]

In Dread Ink, the Grave Hand of (e-mail address removed) Did Inscribe:

So you say that it's futile for me to continue studying it?

Przemek

I'd liken it to an American learning Polish, which my friend Lynn did
without too much trouble. (She studied linguistics at Wash U.)

She was the top student in French in high school, which gave her a
background for declination, case and pronunciation. She's easily a one in
a hundred type person.

Perl, with its panoply of odd, unpronounceable symbols, is as
Polish-looking a syntax as I can think of.

That said, I would never tell you sight unseen that you aren't that
exceptional person. I'm a huge advocate of continuing education, and
whatever floats your boat. To quote James Brown:

"It's your thing; do what you wanna do."
--
Frank

...................... o _______________ _,
` Good Morning! , /\_ _| | .-'_|
`................, _\__`[_______________| _| (_|
] [ \, ][ ][ (_|

 

[Jürgen Exner]

As I like many others have filtered Mr. Sense eventually I'm seeing his
rantings only if someone else quotes them as is the case here.

FS> Uri and his ilk are why I would advise against thinking you can
FS> conquer the many idioms of perl by relying on usenet.

Actually Usenet is a poorly suited medium to learn any task. Books,
videos, classes, tutorials, one-on-one tutoring, ..., pretty much
anything is far more effective than Usenet posts when it comes to
learning a particular skill.

On the other hand Usenet is a terrific resource for finding answers to
specific questions. But you are not learning programming by asking a
series of specific questions.

FS> Post a few
FS> more questions as you supplement your study and watch their tone
FS> slip as you don't follow Uri's life advice.

Just in case you are refering to your own experience: you may want to
recall that people actually were very patient and explained even very
basic items in depth in the beginning. It was only after you insisted on
using a hammer to drive a screw instead of picking up a screw driver and
then asked how to file off the screw threads such that you could use the
hammer on that screw, that's when people became irrate and started
plonking you.

FS> Other times, it's been nice. What's really helped me this time
FS> around is that I have a sysadmin buddy who looks at this stuff
FS> with me. I don't regret the fifty dollars I laid out for
FS> _Programming Perl_. YMMV.

What a surprise: a dedicated book is a better learning tool than a
Usenet NG. Who would have thought so?

jue

 

[Jürgen Exner]

I have the desire to program. I read
and play with examples. I even understand the mechanics behind a lot of
it already.. (currently ch4 llama) .

That's definately a good start. But programming is much more than just
putting one command after the other.

My hurdle seems to be the
creativity and allowance perl allows. I'm always looking for the 1+1=2
solution to the problem at hand and get buried there.. I suppose soon
enough and when I at least finish the book I might open up to the idea
of doing 'what works for me'.

The main challenge is to identify, analyse, and divide the problem into
suitable subproblems. As soon as problems grow beyond a certain
threshold this preparation becomes essential and you will spend weeks
"programming" without writing a single line of code.
How to do that and how to reduce a big task into many smaller, more
manageble tasks, including designing a proper abstract data structure as
well as a suitable modularization you can learn in computer science
classes. But we forewarned: there is a reason, why Computer Science is a
4 year university study.

Lukily most people who program as a hobby will never tackle anything
remotely as complex as those tasks and will probably be happy with an
intuitive approach and self-study. And in the professional world
programmers are typically employed to implement only those sub-problems
after system engineers and designers already did all the conceptual
work.

jue

 

[Peter J. Holzer]

Actually Usenet is a poorly suited medium to learn any task. Books,
videos, classes, tutorials, one-on-one tutoring, ..., pretty much
anything is far more effective than Usenet posts when it comes to
learning a particular skill.

On the other hand Usenet is a terrific resource for finding answers to
specific questions.

I disagree with that, actually. When you ask a specific question on
Usenet, there is no guarantee that this question is answered at all and
if it is you probably get at least three different answers and still
have to decide which one (if any) is correct.

I think Usenet is a great discussion medium. As a discussion medium it
is a great tool to learn more about about a field in which you already
have at least basic knowledge. No so much by asking specific questions
than by discussing things, thinking about the questions and answers
given by others, and researching the topics mentioned in discussions.

hp

 

[Randal L. Schwartz]

Peter> I disagree with that, actually. When you ask a specific question on
Peter> Usenet, there is no guarantee that this question is answered at all and
Peter> if it is you probably get at least three different answers and still
Peter> have to decide which one (if any) is correct.

Yes, welcome to community support. Then again, if you called a company
phone support line, you'd probably get the same accuracy.

print "Just another Perl hacker,"; # the original

 

[Jürgen Exner]

I disagree with that, actually. When you ask a specific question on
Usenet, there is no guarantee that this question is answered at all and
if it is you probably get at least three different answers and still
have to decide which one (if any) is correct.

I think Usenet is a great discussion medium. As a discussion medium it
is a great tool to learn more about about a field in which you already
have at least basic knowledge. No so much by asking specific questions
than by discussing things, thinking about the questions and answers
given by others, and researching the topics mentioned in discussions.

You are right, very good point!

jue