Linked by the_randymon on Tue 1st Jan 2013 19:11 UTC
General Development Doesn't matter which OS you're running, somewhere in there, your system depends on Perl to get stuff done. Perl turned 25 years old on December 19th. Though venerable old version 5 remains the most popular, many have moved onto Perl 6, which intentionally broke compatibility and still isn't officially 'production ready.' I can't imagine administering a system without Perl though, so tonight I'm raising a glass of champagne in the direction of founder and creator Larry Wall.
Thread beginning with comment 546824
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Perl
by ndrw on Wed 2nd Jan 2013 11:02 UTC in reply to "God no"
ndrw
Member since:
2009-06-30

You have listed all main reasons I've started using Perl back in late '90s. Yes, it's a perfect glue code. Yes, we have shell scripts but they are a fragmented, incompatible, unportable, inefficient mess. There *is* Perl on Windows and for the most part it is just - Perl.

After a brief experience of writing shell scripts on Linux and trying to deploy them on Solaris I took Perl and it has never fail me since. It is a weird and ugly language but it does its job extremely efficiently (easy to write non-trivial scripts) and is very portable and maintainable. Most of my scripts from a decade before still work and can be used on every single machine I have access to.

Nowadays, I also prefer Python - it's simply a better designed language. But it isn't as reliable and robust as Perl. Primarily because it's being rewritten over and over. This means that virtually all Python 2.2 and 2.4 installations (the only versions I can find in the office) are almost unusable.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Perl
by Soulbender on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 04:19 in reply to "Perl"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Yes, we have shell scripts but they are a fragmented, incompatible, unportable, inefficient mess.


I can't tell if you're talking about shell scripts or perl scripts.

But it isn't as reliable and robust as Perl.


I think you mean backwards compatible. I've never had an reliability or robustness problems. On the other hand, I haven't used 2.2 and 2.4 since the mid 2000's.

This means that virtually all Python 2.2 and 2.4 installations (the only versions I can find in the office) are almost unusable.


2.2 and 2.4? Seriously? Last 2.2 release was almost 10 years ago. I'm afraid you'r problem is not with python, it's with the company being stuck in the 1990's ;)
That said, it's perfectly possible to write code that runs on 2.2 as well as 2.7/3. I wouldn't WANT to do it but it can be done.

Edited 2013-01-03 04:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3