What is the reason for Perl?

[Eric J. Roode]

so, at least one fixed argument. But C does give information about the
number.

No, it does _not_. You seem to have a severe misunderstanding of how
functions are called in C.

--
Eric
`$=`;$_=\%!;($_)=/(.)/;$==++$|;($.,$/,$,,$\,$",$;,$^,$#,$~,$*,$:,@%)=(
$!=~/(.)(.).(.)(.)(.)(.)..(.)(.)(.)..(.)......(.)/,$"),$=++;$.++;$.++;
$_++;$_++;($_,$\,$,)=($~.$"."$;$/$%[$?]$_$\$,$:$%[$?]",$"&$~,$#,);$,++
;$,++;$^|=$";`$_$\$,$/$:$;$~$*$%[$?]$.$~$*${#}$%[$?]$;$\$"$^$~$*.>&$=`

 

[Tassilo v. Parseval]

Also sprach Eric J. Roode:

char buf[4];
strcpy (buf, "hello");

strcpy() can't tell that you're trying to stuff too much data into the
buffer. There simply is no way.

Of course there is, silly:

jbokma:~$ type hello.c
bash: type: hello.c: not found
jbokma:~$ cat hello.c
#include <stdlib.h>

int main(void) {

char buf[20];
printf("%d\n", sizeof(buf));
}
jbokma:~$ gcc hello.c
jbokma:~$ ./a.out
20

You didn't show me strcpy() finding out how large the buffer is; you
showed me the calling function finding out.

And if the memory is on the heap as opposed to on the stack (acquired
through means of malloc()), not even the calling context can find out
the segment size.

Tassilo

 

[Erwin Moller]

Explain to me if you can why Perl is something I should use in
replacement to say C++ and a native API....
I say "if you can" because I'm interrested in your bullshit.
After 2 years newbie Perl (forced on me). I know the breadth
of it and the power boils down to package interfaced dll's
to the os by an extroidnary amount of contributors who don't
know when to hold off publishing, in lieu of the misguided
fame (and down in flames) it is thought (in their heads) to
bring.

C++ and native API, without complex workarounds (for
Perl language shortcomings the modules exhibit) is
about a thousand percent more reliable and faster.

Why should anybody invest time in a guessing game such
as Perl. Not Perl per-say, but modules that leave you
very short in the bottom line?

Let the bullshit begin .........->

Hi,

(Just dropping in here)
Well, next time try asking more nicely.

I quited Perl some years ago.
Why?
Because it was not 'my language', I had trouble expressing what I ment.
To me Perl looks often as garbled nonsense, not unlike my english.
But it isn't garbled nonsense of course.

Bottomline is: You are probably as stupid as I am, and do not have the
brains to read/write Perl as a natural language.
I switched to Java and PHP.
Both are very powerfull and can get the same job done as Perl can, be it in
a way I understand.

So why don't you stick Perl up yours and go coding C++, if that is what you
are good at?
What is your problem, man?
Are you frustrated you cannot code Perl well?
Don't be. Just stick to the languages you are comfortable with.

Oh well...
[back to PHP]

Regards,
Erwin Moller

 

[Matt Garrish]

"Erwin Moller"

So why don't you stick Perl up yours and go coding C++, if that is what
you
are good at?
What is your problem, man?

He's one of these hopeless individuals who seek out human contact through
the anonymity of usenet (Purl Gurl, Xah Lee, etc.). He's exhausted anyone's
interested here, so the only means left to get people to talk to him is to
resort to trolling and see if anyone bites. Eventually he'll get bored and
go troll another group.

Matt

 

[David H. Adler]

Interesting that you ask people for their opinion and then assume that
the responses will be BS. Why bother?

Let us introduce you to the concept of "trolling"... :-/

 

[robic0]

robic0 wrote in

C++ and Perl have their own strengths and weaknesses. Perl is great at a
lot of things C++ isn't. And vice-versa.

I've been a C programmer for 20 years, a Perl programmer for 10, and a
C++ programmer for 15. So I know something about the strengths and
weaknesses of these languages.

C is a great language, but it's oooold. It's very low-level. You
constantly have to worry about allocation, deallocation, buffer sizes,
aliases, and so on. It's a pain in the ass sometimes. The language does
virtually nothing for you; you have to do a lot of work to get anything
done. Plus, the language has no reflection/introspection capabilities at
all, and its control structures are weak.

Gee funny, thats what Larry Wall used to write Perl !!

C++ is in some ways better than C, in some ways worse.

I like that you can do protyping at the implementation level

Its OO model is
rather outdated; its macro and templating facilities are weak.

Oh, maybe you haven't seen STL or ATL or Com..

On the
plus side, most things that you would need to do with statically-defined
structures at compile-time are in fact doable. It's fairly complete. It
suffers from C's requirement to nail down every single type at compile-
time; it's hard to make heterogeneous structures.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't know what your big word is here.
I like that you can do protyping at the implementation level

Perl is a much higher-level language than either of the above.

Higher level means its on drugs... slower than dog crap drying
and twice as smelly. Wait, I guess that means robust ..

It does a
whole boatload of the work for you, so you don't have to worry so much
about allocation, buffer sizes, etc. String manipulation in Perl is a
joy, compared to in C or C++ (or Java). It also has a more mature OO
model than C++, and its OO (indeed even function definitions) can be
created or changed at run-time. On the down side, it is pitifully slow
-- mostly because it's doing all that work for you behind the scenes.

Perl is my language of preference,

Perl is an excuse to be in-articulate and lazy, and to float a big
black cloud over peoples head and rain on them.
People who write Perl 1-liners have no idea of what their writing
in regard to code efficency whatsoever. With C++ compilers you
can view your source in assembly and add up the machine cycles
for yourself. Timing anything in Perl is the most bogus thing I
ever heard of, completely device dependent. See if you can grab
some assembly output from the Perl macro's you write all the way
down to the interpreter. But Perlers just drift on the current like
a bottle in the ocean. At your level, its entirely a guessing game
that can't be quantified... period !!

just because it allows me to get more
work done in a given amount of time.

You never worked a day in your life !

 

[robic0]

robic0 () wrote on MMMMCDLXXXVI September MCMXCIII in
<URL:.. Explain to me if you can why Perl is something I should use in
.. replacement to say C++ and a native API....

There's no need to use Perl. Feel free to use something else. Perl
isn't worse or better - just different.

.. I say "if you can" because I'm interrested in your bullshit.
.. After 2 years newbie Perl (forced on me). I know the breadth
.. of it and the power boils down to package interfaced dll's
.. to the os by an extroidnary amount of contributors who don't
.. know when to hold off publishing, in lieu of the misguided
.. fame (and down in flames) it is thought (in their heads) to
.. bring.

I'm sorry to hear that after two years, you're still so low in your
companies pecking order than others decide in which language you program.

Yup, still a contractor, but I'm aiming for that distinguished rank of
apprentice junior grade 3 like you.

.. C++ and native API, without complex workarounds (for
.. Perl language shortcomings the modules exhibit) is
.. about a thousand percent more reliable and faster.

So, why the whining? Go off, program in C++ and be happy.

Jump and skip, play, pick flowers and like the rep at the
electric company after a long disputed argument over the bill
says.... "Sir, I don't want to argue with you. And oh by the way,
... have a nice day" as the biotch hangs up in my ear. Not letting
such wisdom go to waste, I say to you: "Have a nice day sweethart"!

.. Why should anybody invest time in a guessing game such
.. as Perl. Not Perl per-say, but modules that leave you
.. very short in the bottom line?


Only people who have to invest time in Perl are the bottom feeders.

And only the people who choose to are the "top" feeders.
Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa..............

The junior programmers who aren't trusted to make decisions.

I'm not up to junior grade 3 yet, whats it like?

Everyone else coding in Perl do so by choice.

Mhh, sounds painfull !!

 

[axel]

So, why the whining? Go off, program in C++ and be happy.

.. Why should anybody invest time in a guessing game such
.. as Perl. Not Perl per-say, but modules that leave you
.. very short in the bottom line?

Only people who have to invest time in Perl are the bottom feeders.
The junior programmers who aren't trusted to make decisions.

Everyone else coding in Perl do so by choice.

I think that you are entirely correct. I was once forced
to programme in C++ when I realised that I could have
done it in Perl... in a far shorter time... but then
my daily rate was much higher.

Axel

 

[Erwin Moller]

"Erwin Moller"


He's one of these hopeless individuals who seek out human contact through
the anonymity of usenet (Purl Gurl, Xah Lee, etc.). He's exhausted
anyone's interested here, so the only means left to get people to talk to
him is to resort to trolling and see if anyone bites. Eventually he'll get
bored and go troll another group.

Matt

Well, that is sad indeed.
I didn't know that/him. :-/
I am sorry I took the bait now.
;-)

Regards,
Erwin Moller

 

[Erwin Moller]

Robico: you behave like a complete idiot.
Don't you see it yourself?

1) You ask a question. Or rather, you dare anybody in this Perl ng to say
anything positive abour Perl.
2) Eric Roode, who clearly didn't meet you before, writes a comprehensive
interesting response.
3) You flame him, and in the process clearly showing your own lack of
knowledge.

Robico: You are an idiot, did you know that?

I think Matt Garrish's response futher down sums it up nicely...

Instead of ranting in technical newsgroups, you might consider some
counceling, introspection, or (more) medicines.

Have a nice life.

Erwin Moller

 

[robic0]

Robico: you behave like a complete idiot.
Don't you see it yourself?

1) You ask a question. Or rather, you dare anybody in this Perl ng to say
anything positive abour Perl.
2) Eric Roode, who clearly didn't meet you before, writes a comprehensive
interesting response.
3) You flame him, and in the process clearly showing your own lack of
knowledge.

Robico: You are an idiot, did you know that?

I think Matt Garrish's response futher down sums it up nicely...

Instead of ranting in technical newsgroups, you might consider some
counceling, introspection, or (more) medicines.

Have a nice life.

Erwin Moller

Who in the **** are you asshole?

 

[robic0]

I think that you are entirely correct. I was once forced
to programme in C++ when I realised that I could have
done it in Perl... in a far shorter time... but then
my daily rate was much higher.

Axel

So ahh, you never got to Junior Grade 4 decision level, but you made
Vice President money..... ah

 

[robic0]

I didn't realize personally meeting was a usenet prerequisite.
Hey, glad ta meet ya !!!"flame" is a word reserved for forums, not usenet. Here, we call it
intellectual conflicts........Never conversed with a usenet individual in the "familiar" person.
They nor you know anybody here.
You don't quote, your words are shit !!!
You might consider that your an asshole who is under the impression
someone on this earth gives a rats ass wheather you live or die...
Blow me !!!

Who in the **** are you asshole?

Yes he is !!

 

[Eric J. Roode]

robic0 wrote in

Who in the **** are you asshole?

It's nice to see such an intellectual comeback.

--
Eric
`$=`;$_=\%!;($_)=/(.)/;$==++$|;($.,$/,$,,$\,$",$;,$^,$#,$~,$*,$:,@%)=(
$!=~/(.)(.).(.)(.)(.)(.)..(.)(.)(.)..(.)......(.)/,$"),$=++;$.++;$.++;
$_++;$_++;($_,$\,$,)=($~.$"."$;$/$%[$?]$_$\$,$:$%[$?]",$"&$~,$#,);$,++
;$,++;$^|=$";`$_$\$,$/$:$;$~$*$%[$?]$.$~$*${#}$%[$?]$;$\$"$^$~$*.>&$=`

 

[robic0]

robic0 wrote in

It's nice to see such an intellectual comeback.

Who's trolling now?

 

[robic0]

[...]
Only in that it lacks some niceties that more modern languages (like
Perl, or Java, or C#) provide, such as exceptions.

Isn't there one (or even more) library that makes exceptions available
in C?

Not that I've seen. I don't see how it could be implemented. Of course,
I may be missing something.

goto LABEL?
return;

You can do anything with goto. Doesn't mean it's a lovely control
structure.

nor does Perl for that matter, eval and die is not that different from
longjmp. However, with both C and Perl you can use a library to make
things easier.

eval and die are tons different from setjmp/longjump.

yes it does.

No, it doesn't.

Aren't there libraries that do *exactly* the same for C / C++?

Dunno. Can you point to one that does so for C?

such a library might have a join, a split.


sprintf.

Sure, sprintf exists. You can't tell me it's a simple or easy to use as,
say $foo = "$bar $baz{a}{b} $quux[5]";

Yup, all this can be found in libraries for C, C++, Java, etc.

No library can make C or C++ support multi-line strings. Try this in C:

strcpy (var, "This string has
a newline in it");

or:

strcpy (var, <<END_OF_STRING);
...
END_OF_STRING

I doubt it.

Then you don't know what you're talking about.

The question is: do you need those all the time? Moreover, the things
you do with, for example closures, are those not work arounds (now and
then) for limitations Perl has, but say C++ not?

Do you need those all the time? Of course not. I don't need wire
strippers all the time, but they're in my toolkit, and using a knife to
strip insulation off a wire is tedious and dangerous.

I don't see how closures are a workaround for limitations perl has,
except possibly in the sense of information hiding. Closures are
probably never necessary, but they make a bunch of problems easier to
solve. There have been times when I've wished for a closure in C.

No it isn't. Just create your own Universal class, and let everything
that adds inherit from it.

That only works if all of the libraries (including those from other
vendors) that you are using inherit from _your_ Universal class, which of
course they don't. In Perl, polymorphism simply requires that methods
have the same name. In C++, it requires that they have the same
ancestor.

C++'s solution is not *wrong* (nor is Perl's *right*); they're just
*different*. I happen to prefer Perl's, and have used it to good effect.
C++'s is more limited, however.

Nobody read your post, i just gave it a 10 second look.
If a tree falls in the woods, how do you know it fell if
you didn't hear it?