NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/lang/c-part1/4956

Text File | 1996-08-05 | 3.5 KB | 67 lines

Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.perl.misc,comp.lang.tcl,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.java
Path: in2.uu.net!newsat!da_vinci!jnshapi
From: [e-mail] (Shapiro)
Subject: Re: Relative Speed of Perl vs. Tcl vs. C
Message-ID: <DMKsD6.IEt@da_vinci.ecte.uswc.uswest.com>
Followup-To: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.perl.misc,comp.lang.tcl,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.java
Sender: news@da_vinci.ecte.uswc.uswest.com (IT Netnews)
Nntp-Posting-Host: future
Organization: US WEST Information Technologies
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <4e3a2u$[e-mail]> <4e54vc$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 19:48:42 GMT

John Viega ([e-mail]) wrote:
=> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
=> > I hope you see my point by analogy.  Perl code is imminently readable
=> > to me.  I am fluent in Perl.  Appaarently, you are not.  So it is
=> > *unreadable* to *you*.
=> >
=> > If you need some help understanding Perl, I perhaps can recommend a
=> > good book or two. :-)

=> French is not something anyone is expected to be able to use
=> productively in a week, nevermind a day or an hour.  There are
=> languages in which novice programmers can do interesting things with a
=> small learning curve, something Perl isn't really capable of, in my
=> experience.  I've taught a handful of non-programmers how to do CGI
=> coding, and I usually let them pick which language they want to learn
=> by showing them the exact same simple CGI program in several different
=> languages, and letting them choose which one they'd like to learn.
=> There are languages such as Python, which non-programmers can look at
=> and have *some* idea what is going on.  I've never seen a
=> non-programmer who has been able to make much sense out of a
=> relatively simple Perl script, and certainly, none of those people
=> ever chose Perl as the language they wanted me to teach them.

=> While I certainly see your analogy, it is hard to deny that complaints
=> about Perl's syntax are a big problem for the language.  I feel that
=> readability and learnability are two important design points that Perl
=> has all but ignored. However, in a way, that's understandable, since
=> there are so many important design principles, many of which make
=> implementing others difficult, that I would hardly expect any language
=> to be all things to all people.  However,  I think that it is quite
=> unfortunate that the languages that see the most use and support today
=> cater to the beginning programmer not at all.

I program in both Perl and Tcl/Tk.  My feeling is that it is often easier
to read Tcl/Tk code than Perl code because of the coding styles used by the
writers.  Also, (and please do not flame me for this comment) Perl has some
very powerful functions which allow the programmer to do a lot in just a
few lines.  Sometimes I have to think a bit before I can understand my own
Perl code, code which I may have written only a few days ago.  This is not
the case with Tcl/Tk.  Tcl/Tk code is generally easier to glance at and
understand.

For me at least, I use Perl for everything I can and Tcl/Tk mostly for the
wonderful Tk front end capabilities.  I confess that I learned Perl before
Tcl/Tk and may be somewhat biased, but it is hard to argue with some of the
functionality only available in Perl.  Oh, and I have tought many people of
varying capabilities, Perl.

=> |John Viega                           "Non-structurally equivolent types in C|

--
Hope this helps,
Jim Shapiro