Really?

[Octo Mancer]

"Perl is a script programming language that is similar in syntax to the C
language and that includes a number of popular Unix facilities such as
SED, awk, and tr. Perl is an interpreted language that can optionally be
compiled just before execution into either C code or cross-platform
bytecode."

It seems that talking bollocks about Perl is not confined to graduate
students ...

http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid39_gci214291,00.html

 

[Matija Papec]

X-Ftn-To: Octo Mancer

"Perl is a script programming language that is similar in syntax to the C
language and that includes a number of popular Unix facilities such as
SED, awk, and tr. Perl is an interpreted language that can optionally be
compiled just before execution into either C code or cross-platform
bytecode."

It seems that talking bollocks about Perl is not confined to graduate
students ...

http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid39_gci214291,00.html

So you actually have something to say or just want to populate killfile?

 

[Tad McClellan]

So you actually have something to say

I expect he was trying to say that Perl *mis*information is
widespread, along with an example that I found a bit amusing.

or just want to populate killfile?

Huh?

I didn't see anything remotely killfilable in the OP.

What did you see?

 

[Tassilo v. Parseval]

Also sprach Tad McClellan:

I expect he was trying to say that Perl *mis*information is
widespread, along with an example that I found a bit amusing.

I don't see any misinformation in the quoted paragraph.

Tassilo

 

[Tad McClellan]

Also sprach Tad McClellan:


I don't see any misinformation in the quoted paragraph.

Click on the "SED" link and you'll see that it is not "sed".

 

[Richard Gration]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 06:22:06 +0100, Tassilo v. Parseval wrote:

I don't see any misinformation in the quoted paragraph.

I don't see how it's reasonable to say that Perl *includes* SED,awk and
tr. It doesn't include them, it re-implements some of their functionality.
I also find this fragment amusing:

"Perl is an interpreted language that can optionally be compiled ..."

Interpreted *and* compiled? To say that about anything means they're
approximating at best, and flat wrong at worst. Unless there really exists
a language I haven't heard about for which there is both an interpreter
and a compiler ...

While it's hard to say that the article is wrong, exactly, it could have
been better written.

Rich

 

[Anno Siegel]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 06:22:06 +0100, Tassilo v. Parseval wrote:


I don't see how it's reasonable to say that Perl *includes* SED,awk and
tr. It doesn't include them, it re-implements some of their functionality.
I also find this fragment amusing:

"Perl is an interpreted language that can optionally be compiled ..."

Interpreted *and* compiled? To say that about anything means they're
approximating at best, and flat wrong at worst. Unless there really exists
a language I haven't heard about for which there is both an interpreter
and a compiler ...

If you count translation into byte code as compilation, it's very
common for interpreters to have both. Perl is rather an exception.
If you only count native machine code as "compiled", there's at least
the Lisp family of interpreters. They usually come with a compiler
(which is typically written in Lisp and compiled by itself).

Anno

 

[Richard Gration]

Richard Gration <[email protected]> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:

If you count translation into byte code as compilation, it's very
common for interpreters to have both. Perl is rather an exception.
If you only count native machine code as "compiled", there's at least
the Lisp family of interpreters. They usually come with a Perl is an
interpreted language that can optionally be compiled ..."compiler (which
is typically written in Lisp and compiled by itself).

Fair enough, I didn't say exactly what I wanted to there. I was taught in
CS that an interpreted language is one where the source is translated into
machine executable form line by line at execution time, and each
instruction is executed as soon as it is completely parsed. Conversely, a
program in a compiled language must be completely parsed by the
compiler before it starts executing. In this sense Perl is not an
interpreted language.

However, I understand that when a Perl program is compiled it doesn't end
up in the same form as a compiled C/Fortran/Pascal program, it still needs
a runtime environment, which I suppose could be (is?) called the Perl
interpreter. Is that what you meant when you said that Perl is an
exception?

I still think that to say that "Perl is an interpreted language that can
optionally be compiled ..." is less than helpful and a tech site should
have found a way to say it which avoids the apparent oxymoron.

Rich

 

[meneg]

Fair enough, I didn't say exactly what I wanted to there. I was taught in
CS that an interpreted language is one where the source is translated into
machine executable form line by line at execution time, and each
instruction is executed as soon as it is completely parsed. Conversely, a
program in a compiled language must be completely parsed by the
compiler before it starts executing. In this sense Perl is not an
interpreted language.

I don't know the definition of an interpreted language but the most
amusing part was the exact first sentence that says it is a "script
language". A scripting language I know well it means one that goes line by
line into - usually - shell commands. That is exactly what Perl is NOT.

As about that text saying Perl can be compiled I don't think it went
further that mentioning the perl cc perl-to-c tool.

Which as in 5.8.4 that I have here fails spectacularly to create
compilable c code for gcc in 99.9% of the cases.

-meneg

 

[Matija Papec]

X-Ftn-To: Tad McClellan

I expect he was trying to say that Perl *mis*information is
widespread, along with an example that I found a bit amusing.


I didn't see anything remotely killfilable in the OP.

What did you see?

A troll, but wasn't sure so I asked first.

 

[Paul Arthur]

I also find this fragment amusing:

"Perl is an interpreted language that can optionally be compiled ..."

Interpreted *and* compiled? To say that about anything means they're
approximating at best, and flat wrong at worst. Unless there really exists
a language I haven't heard about for which there is both an interpreter
and a compiler ...

QuickBASIC, perhaps?