perl-modperl mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rolf Banting <>
Subject Re: decline and fall of modperl?
Date Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:36:06 GMT
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Octavian R√Ęsnita <>wrote:

>  *From:* Rolf Banting <>
> Foo JH wrote:
> > In the academia the general directive in choosing a language would be
> > something to this effect:
> > 1. teach modern language concepts, such as OO
> > 2. minimise the learning curve by way of something easy to teach, easy
> > to learn without having to figure out all the details of programming
> > 3. introduce the students to a language that will make them attractive
> > to the general market
> >
> > You probably have a feel why Perl isn't a strong choice given these
> > objectives.
> > On points 1 & 2:
> > 1. Perl supports more programming paradigms than Java.
> > 2. You write fewer lines of perl to get things done than you do in Java.
> 1. I don't know what it means that perl supports more paradigms than Java,
> but I know that the Java / C# OOP style is usually considered a much
> complete and better standard than one used by Perl.
> Functions are first class citizens in Perl - so you get functional
programming built in. You don't in Java.

How are standards of OO quantified and compared?

> Java / DotNet support interfaces, so the classes they create respect the
> "contracts" better, while in perl world, the programmer is free, and nobody
> points a shotgun to him in order to force him to do it.
> Java and C# uses a dot notation for separating the classes when using the
> OOP style, and even Template-Toolkit uses it, but perl uses something else.
> C++ uses '::'

> 2. It is right that perl is probably one of the most productive languages,
> because it requires to write very little code, for doing very many things.
> But for doing the same thing, Ruby and Python can use sometimes even less
> code, because they don't use so much punctuation and funny char
> And anyway, for the beginners, this is not a big problem. The biggest
> problem is that perl is harder to learn. The programmers might want to learn
> a language for a year, and get a job, and after this they hope that they
> will find time to learn the chosen language better while they have a job.
> Harder to learn than what? Is there any evidence for this?

> We could say that perl would be really great for these days if we could say
> about it something like:
> - It is the most easy to learn language even by the most stupid
> programmers.
> It is easy to learn!

> - It can create portable programs that can run everywhere, under Windows,
> Mac, Linux, shared hosting web sites that don't offer root and shell access.
> - The source code of the programs can be hidden.
> - There are very many recent books that teach Perl.
> Why is "recent" important? The language features haven't changed much so
why would the learning resources?

> - Perl is chosen by bigger companies like IBM, Oracle, Microsoft, Sun,
> Yahoo, Google, SAP.
> - The popular sites like Twitter, Digg, Facebook, MySpace, Wikipedia, are
> powered by perl.
> - There are important other software made in Perl which are used much these
> days, like a mailing list manager, a web server, financial charting
> software, stock exchange trading applications, etc.
> I know of perl CORBA applications that have been responsible for charging
literally millions of real-time short messages in telecomms networks in
Latin America.

> ...and other things like these. But unfortunately in the last years I've
> seen only reports about the decreasing number of sites that use Perl.
> Octavian
> Use of perl is declining - but not due to lack of technical merit. Fashions

View raw message