Page 1 of 1

Posted: 09/10/02, 6:04 pm
by Gerry
Just started reading this “CGI & Perl” book and I'm about half way through now and hating it. Why the hell do they have to take just about all the programming syntax rules that I have learnt and throw them out the window and then replace them with others that are seemingly less logical. Sure they make programming look easier but can't they just stick to the standard that nearly every other language uses. If this was my first language then these would probably be good, but it's not and now I have to try to remember all these new syntax rules.

eg.
<li>Use <i>@array</i> when addressing the entire array but <i>$array[#]</i> when addressing an element of that array.</li>

So why <i>@</i> and a <i>$</i> couldn't the same be used for both? Doesn't <i>[#]</i> alone show that your addressing a single element?

Ohh well rant ova, “Pattern Matching” is the next chapter, so I guess it ain't all bad.

Ohh yeah and please comment. If I'm wrong, I wanna know about it and just how wrong I am.

_________________
<img src="http://www.boomspeed.com/gerrys_cs/rosepet.gif" align="right" alt="Rose petal" />

<font class=editedby>[ This Message was edited by: Gerry on 2002-09-11 02:09 ]</font>

Posted: 09/10/02, 8:59 pm
by SOD
Just accept it Gerry. It does not need any explaination take it for what it is....... Bob I noticed most kids er "Young Adults" these days have a hard time accepting anything. The common thread here is that <i>array</i> needs a <i>discriptor or verbage</i> to disgunish global or local (just like a tree view) form hence @ or $. Just think of @ as global to the object and $ as a local call within that object. No Biggie. Why is that so hard?

<font class=editedby>[ This Message was edited by: sod on 2002-09-11 05:27 ]</font>

Posted: 09/10/02, 9:37 pm
by Gerry
>> <i>Why is that so hard?</i>
Because it was just an example and there are many other things like this. But like I said why can't the bracketed number be the descriptor like it is in every other language I have seen.

<li>another example is <i>elseif</i> being shortened to <i>elsif</i></li>

>> <i>Bob I noticed most kids er "Young Adults" these days have a hard time accepting anything.</i>
I have no problem accepting something if it's efficient and has a logical reason behind it (especially if it goes against the flow), I don't really think that's too unreasonable. If people just accepted stuff without questioning, progress wouldn't exist.

Ohh yeah and please don't call me a "Young Adult", the term "adult" is usually used to describe somebody who boring, stuck in their ways and hates progress. I usually refer to myself as a "kid" or a "big kid", so there was no need for you to correct yourself. :-)

Posted: 09/11/02, 8:05 am
by SOD
<i>exactly Bob</i> this is beginning to get, no I will correct myself, this is tiresome. This is not computer fantasy camp where you can have it your way. No one is going to kiss your ass and make the code the way you want it. Bob really goes out of his way to encourage you guys hoping that it will inspire you. You are right 'young adults' was the wrong thing to say when in reality you are just a bunch of pouty brats who are not as smart as you think you are.

Posted: 09/11/02, 9:09 am
by JohnT
"Don't they realize I learned it one way and now they want me to tax my brain and see another perception, when the way I see things right now is the only and correct way. Who do they really think they are".

Posted: 09/11/02, 10:37 am
by SOD
Image


he hehe he....heh, he said "perception"

Posted: 09/12/02, 3:48 am
by Gerry
<!-- BBCode Quote Start --><TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class=postbody>Quote:</font><HR width=100% color=#333333 SIZE=1></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class=quote><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2002-09-11 17:09, JohnT wrote:
"Don't they realize I learned it one way and now they want me to tax my brain and see another perception, when the way I see things right now is the only and correct way. Who do they really think they are".</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR width=100% color=#333333 SIZE=1></TD></TR></TABLE><!-- BBCode Quote End -->

LOL, I hate you John :-)

That really isn't what I'm saying, there are parts of Perl that I love, the parts that make logical sense and are different from the norm for a LOGICAL reason.
ie. RegExps

I used to use just normal wildcards. But in relation to all the other changes, I just want a reason for that "perception".

ohh well

Posted: 12/28/02, 10:15 am
by Thanatos
Sorry, SOD, but it seems the only person who isn't as smart as they think they are is you. Gerry raises valid points about the syntax and structure of Perl. The language was developed with other languages in plain sight to base itself from, it is well within our right to expect that it would be up to scratch. If a modern car was released now with no air conditioning, and no option for air conditioning, you'd be asking why it didn't have it. All the other cars have it, at least as an option, why not this one? Same thing applies.

Your response was overly aggressive, and showed little regard for the original post at all, and in fact more a display of "fanboy"-ism than anything else. You tell Gerry that he needs to "accept it", but it seems you need to accept that not everyone is going to subscribe to your line of thought, and not everyone is going to like the same things you like. I personally worked with Perl for several years, and I encountered several of the things that Gerry describes. I don't like Perl as a result. I thought his complaint was quite valid, and your response quite childish. So before you open your mouth and have a go at someone again, think about who is the real child here - you or them.

Apologies for the gap in post times.

<font class=editedby>[ This Message was edited by: Thanatos on 2002-12-28 18:16 ]</font>

Posted: 12/28/02, 10:42 am
by SOD
Each language has its drawbacks. You can seek to change the world or better yet understand the scope of the language and its strong and weak points and how those properties and methods relate to what you are programming. This true of any abstraction. It is not up to a programmer to like or dislike any method of a given language just to get the most out of it. You need to respect the dynamic nature of the language or how it thinks. (or doesn't)

<font class=editedby>[ This Message was edited by: SOD on 2002-12-28 18:51 ]</font>

Posted: 12/28/02, 10:48 am
by Thanatos
Personally I consider Perl to be outdated. For functionality and ease-of-use sake, I generally use PHP these days, also due to its widespread server support.

I still think he raises valid questions, though, and I'm curious to know why their methods, such as for addressing arrays, were chosen. Keep in mind, languages such as C were around prior to the development of Perl, and had simple and effective structure, so it's not a matter of ignorance, per se. They made a conscious choice to do things the way they did. One can only conclude that they must have foreseen some sort of advantage, which is why we ask the question of "Why?".

Posted: 12/28/02, 11:02 am
by SOD
You have to remember (if I am correct) perl did not start out to be a language used for web design.
It was adopted because they needed a language...for web design it has been refered to as duct tape. The compairsons have been made that to process larger amounts of raw information perl is the way to go. But that is hear say. I like the ease and modular design of PHP which makes changes easier as I understand it some changes in perl can result in large top down changes resulting in massive rewrites.

Posted: 12/28/02, 11:12 am
by SOD
<!-- BBCode Quote Start --><TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class=postbody>Quote:</font><HR width=100% color=#333333 SIZE=1></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class=quote><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2002-12-28 18:48, Thanatos wrote:


I still think he raises valid questions, though, and I'm curious to know why their methods, such as for addressing arrays which is why we ask the question of "Why?".
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR width=100% color=#333333 SIZE=1></TD></TR></TABLE><!-- BBCode Quote End -->
Don't just ask why. You need to do some detective work go back in time and look what type of data Perl orginialy was used for...also keep in mind the array methods were designed against runtime libs (which are abstractions) as where C based languages are ~native. Look into the structure of thise runtime libs you will find the answer to your array question. What bothers me the most is the idea that abstractions do not need to be improved upon VB6 VBS Perl PHP and other languages need to be actively evaluated and rebuilt instead of just added to. We can't patch the world but that is the popular culture now.

Posted: 12/28/02, 7:16 pm
by Gerry
Ahhh THANK YOU! It's good to have somebody to get these fluent speaking bullies off my tail and I'm glad there is somebody else out there who gets what I'm trying to say. I don't complain about Perl any more though, I just stopped using it.

_________________
<small><a href="http://www.free2code.net/top50/in.php?id=17" target="_blank">Vote for shellcity.net on Free2Code.net!</a></small>

<font class=editedby>[ This Message was edited by: Gerry on 2002-12-29 03:18 ]</font>

Posted: 12/29/02, 2:45 am
by SOD
I understand what you are trying to say and I understand the point. The issue is this: Sometimes it takes more than writing good code to be a good programmer. Most of us "bullies" understand that.