|
Grex > Jellyware > #79: Python or Ruby (or Something Else) for Web Development? |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 67 responses total. |
sholmes
|
|
response 25 of 67:
| 
Aug 22 09:46 UTC 2007 |
Perl sucks when its used for what it is not good at.
but for small text editing I find perl one liners the best at the job.
I would definitely not write a 1000lines program in perl.
|
scholar
|
|
response 26 of 67:
|
Aug 22 10:05 UTC 2007 |
You'd prefer a 10000lines program in C
|
twenex
|
|
response 27 of 67:
|
Aug 22 10:22 UTC 2007 |
Most people would be both pleased and astonished to have manpages that give
copious amounts of information.
I have to say, though, the Linux LVM manpages are REALLY good.
|
remmers
|
|
response 28 of 67:
|
Aug 22 14:31 UTC 2007 |
Yeah, Perl does spam the manpage space. Really clutters up manpage
search results to the point of making them unusable. Shame on them. I
wouldn't go so far as to remove Perl on that account, though.
Getting back to Ruby vs. Python: Google searches turn up tons of
discussion, with lots of opinions on both sides but no particular
consensus. The _RESTful Web Services_ book I'm reading favors Ruby for
its code examples, so that tends to tilt me in the Ruby direction, at
least for now.
|
trancequility
|
|
response 29 of 67:
|
Aug 23 01:31 UTC 2007 |
Writing 10000 line of C code is about as enjoyable as getting a BJ in a dres,
stocking, and heels.
|
cross
|
|
response 30 of 67:
|
Aug 23 01:50 UTC 2007 |
I thought you were into that kind of thing?
|
trancequility
|
|
response 31 of 67:
|
Aug 23 02:22 UTC 2007 |
Okay, outside of the really bad typos in thread 29, writing 1000 lines
of threaded code for Linux in C is like wearing cheap stockings. Both are piss
poor imitations to the real thing and both tend to rip apart at the most
inappropriate moments. I really forgot where I was going with this analogy.
I'm also getting the feeling uncle remmer is ignoring me.
And in other news, I finally understand what a fucking tagged union is. Yes,
another winner topic that has taken me 6 months to understand.
|
keesan
|
|
response 32 of 67:
|
Aug 23 16:02 UTC 2007 |
I removed the man pages. Then I removed the doc pages (html). Then I noticed
a large unicode directory containing Tibetan. ANd a Test directory. And a
whole bunch of other files, maybe thousands of them. I only needed perl once
to compile one program, and there was a workaround (manual installation?).
If I ever need it again I can use it at grex or reinstall. The list of files
in perl is 43K (20 printed pages). 80x43=3200 files? Do I really need
anything not in bin or lib (not even including /lib/perl5/unicode - Bengali,
Cherokee, Bopomofo, Ethiopic, Hangul are all interesting but not relevant to
what I am doing with my computer).
What do other people use perl for?
|
cross
|
|
response 33 of 67:
|
Aug 23 22:49 UTC 2007 |
Mostly, text processing (in various guises). So it created a lot of files;
were you running out of space or something?
|
maus
|
|
response 34 of 67:
|
Aug 24 01:11 UTC 2007 |
What I'd recommend, if you can borrow use of someone else's machine and
they will let you download and build on it, make either the microperl or
miniperl (depending on your needs and space constraints). You will then
have the relevant exe and can move just it and (I think) one or two .so
files and be done with it.
|
keesan
|
|
response 35 of 67:
|
Aug 24 03:01 UTC 2007 |
Thanks for the suggestion about building a smaller perl.
I don't like having a lot of junk on my computer that I do not use.
I process text with pico. I have perl source code (from Slackware 10).
|
maus
|
|
response 36 of 67:
|
Aug 24 03:40 UTC 2007 |
Please do not develop the bad habits of so many people who write perl
codes. Many perl authors write intentionally opaque codes that use
shortcuts, exploit side effects and massive (unnecessary) indirection.
The arrogance seems to be "well, if I wrote it and I understand it, and
if you cannot understand it to maintain it, I must clearly be smarter
than you". Those fuckers deserve to be sodomized with a rusty hashmap
and force-fed an uncommented library characterized by its gotos into
inner-loops. And then beaten savagely.
|
scholar
|
|
response 37 of 67:
|
Aug 24 07:49 UTC 2007 |
Sounds like you need to learn perl.
|
remmers
|
|
response 38 of 67:
|
Aug 24 16:49 UTC 2007 |
It's possible to write decent code in Perl. All of my Perl code is
*supremely* elegant and readable. :)
|
nharmon
|
|
response 39 of 67:
|
Aug 24 17:32 UTC 2007 |
I would have to say the main reason I develop web apps in PHP is because
it is almost universal for web hosts.
|
remmers
|
|
response 40 of 67:
|
Aug 24 17:49 UTC 2007 |
That's true. Rails and Django are less widely supported, or supported
only on rather expensive "premium" accounts.
|
maus
|
|
response 41 of 67:
|
Aug 25 01:48 UTC 2007 |
I did not mean to suggest that all perl authors commit the felonies I
have listed, simply that they seem to be perpetrated by authors who
write in perl more often than by authors who write in other languages.
|
cross
|
|
response 42 of 67:
|
Aug 25 01:56 UTC 2007 |
You, my boy, have clearly never programmed in APL.
:-)
|
maus
|
|
response 43 of 67:
|
Aug 25 01:57 UTC 2007 |
You are correct, I never have even seen any codes written in APL. Do
they lend themselves to horrible, unnecessary obfuscation and
unmaintainability?
|
cross
|
|
response 44 of 67:
|
Aug 25 02:00 UTC 2007 |
APL is *the* original write-only language; Perl is just a cheap imitation.
Well, actually, maybe TECO is older than APL (commands to the TECO text editor
look like linenoise. Emacs was originally written as a set of TECO macros;
hence the name, Editor MACroS.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 45 of 67:
|
Aug 25 03:09 UTC 2007 |
re #43: APL is so ridiculously obfuscated that APL source code can't
even be properly represented on an ASCII terminal (because it
requires a special character set..) Take *that*, Perl weenies!
|
maus
|
|
response 46 of 67:
|
Aug 25 04:29 UTC 2007 |
Oh, is it an MVS language (hence EBCDIC) ? That's not obfuscation,
that's a crap standard that just won't go the fuck away.
|
remmers
|
|
response 47 of 67:
|
Aug 25 11:32 UTC 2007 |
If memory serves, APL is neither ASCII nor EBCDIC - it's got Greek
letters and various mathematical symbols. Efficient code creation
requires a special keyboard.
I believe APL had its origins in the 1960s and predates TECO by a bit.
Again, if I recall correctly, structures such as vectors and matrices
are first-class objects in APL; there are built-in operators for matrix
multiplication and other higher-order operations. In suitable
application areas, I'd think it would be possible to write APL code that
is both compact and readable, although it may not have worked out that
way in practice.
But hey, this is the Ruby vs. Python item, not the dead languages item. :)
|
cross
|
|
response 48 of 67:
|
Aug 25 15:01 UTC 2007 |
TECO dates from 1963, according to Wikipedia. I'd guess that it and APL are
roughly contemporaneous. You are correct that APL uses a special character
set and that vectors, matrices, etc, are all first class objects.
Undoubtedly one could write readable APL code, just as one can write readable
Perl, assembly, etc. In practice, however, that was not easy. It is hard
to envision how one could write readable TECO macros.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 49 of 67:
|
Aug 25 16:33 UTC 2007 |
re #46: as remmers explained, it wasn't a matter of character *encoding*
(ASCII vs. EBCDIC (mostly?) represent the same set of characters, just in
different orderings) but of needing an alternate character set that
included a lot of mathematical symbols not present on an ordinary keyboard
or in either ASCII or EBCDIC. See the wikipedia page for more information.
|