Live data from Hacker News

We were wizards – a foreword to Learning Perl (1993)

jwgoerlich.com

41–50 of 130 posts

Re: We were wizards – a foreword to Learning Perl (1993)

#42

About 5-6 years ago I found a new niche for Perl in my day-to-day work. I did a lot of shell scripting at the time and was constantly getting annoyed by subtle differences between macOS and Linux. Sed is especially difficult, because the flags in BSD version and GNU version for in-place search and replace do not match. Plus, sed regexes are more primitive compared to most other languages. I decided to switch from sed…

I wonder, is Perl more ubiquitous than Python for these cases?

Re: We were wizards – a foreword to Learning Perl (1993)

#43

About 5-6 years ago I found a new niche for Perl in my day-to-day work. I did a lot of shell scripting at the time and was constantly getting annoyed by subtle differences between macOS and Linux. Sed is especially difficult, because the flags in BSD version and GNU version for in-place search and replace do not match. Plus, sed regexes are more primitive compared to most other languages. I decided to switch from sed…

I wonder, is Perl more ubiquitous than Python for these cases?

Possibly more terse.

Re: We were wizards – a foreword to Learning Perl (1993)

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm bashing Perl because I'm using it daily today . I have the moral right. People waxing poetic about their time using Perl back in the late 1990s/early 2000s don't have a vote because they clung onto good bits and have long forgotten the ugly. > it really makes Stream-of-Conscious programming the norm Are you sure it's a Good Thing? Really sure? What if you have teammates? What if you have a life? What if you need…

I still use Perl, maybe not daily but yes to weekly, so I have still have skin in the game. Yes I'm sure.

Do you develop with Perl collaboratively with teammates?

Re: We were wizards – a foreword to Learning Perl (1993)

#45
post #18
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stream of consciousness programming?

I associate this with what we used to call "one-liner programming": I would write a single line of Perl code (in bash, prefixed with `perl -Mwarnings -MDebug -E' '`, convince myself the code did what we needed, and then share it around as a paste in irc / chat / whatever. It was amazing what you could achieve with the right modules, and Perl's flexibility allowed your mind to roam freely. Incidentally, the fact that…

It's sad that Perl is dying a slow death. Between Python and Perl, both styles of coding are possible.

While Python is my preferred language for most tasks, I still use perl as an ad hoc stream processor with `perl -pe` and nothing really beats it at the task. Anything more than 10 lines and I find python easier to deal with (or at least it's my comfort zone).

Re: We were wizards – a foreword to Learning Perl (1993)

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still use Perl, maybe not daily but yes to weekly, so I have still have skin in the game. Yes I'm sure.

Do you develop with Perl collaboratively with teammates?

Not anymore, but I’ve probably worked on the largest Perl code bases in the world, so again… I’m not a Perl noob

Re: We were wizards – a foreword to Learning Perl (1993)

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For anyone who cares, sed -i'' should be compatible on both mac and linux.

It is not. -i'' is exactly the same thing as "-i", and while GNU sed interprets this as an empty suffix, BSD sed expects -i to take an argument normally, and will treat the next argument as the extension. If you instead use sed -i "", as is appropriate with a BSD sed, GNU sed will interpret that as the empty program and try to read from a file named your actual script.

I hate that behavior of GNU sed (and also of mktemp). Having a flag optionally take an argument is just so weird and surprising, and the syntax is always unexpected and inconsistent.

Re: We were wizards – a foreword to Learning Perl (1993)

#48

I liked Perl for text parsing and that kind of work.. Used it professionally for about 3 years. Two things i didn't like about it which i still don't 1. It's a conceptually huge language. There are several things to learn to be effective or you fall into the problem when the 10% that you use is different from the 10% that your teammates use. I found python attractive because of this. 2. I disliked Walls book. It was…

IMHO, Python is also huge nowadays. :( (The language itself, that is, not counting the 500K+ third-party libraries that it has nowadays.)

As for the Camel book, what I liked about it is that it explains why Perl is the way it is... the underlying philosophy. Once you know that, it starts making a lot more sense. You usually didn't get that with books like "Learn Perl in 21 days" or something.

Re: We were wizards – a foreword to Learning Perl (1993)

#49
Perl was the first programming language I worked with at a real, paying job. I don’t miss that job, but it did teach me a lot about how to deliver value quickly (Perl is still better at smashing 400 million lines of text than most other languages), and some of the impediments to that (Perl’s “write only” syntactic approach).

For all of Perl’s shortcomings, I’ve always felt that no other language came with Larry and Randall’s sense that programming was fun. The Perl folks always understood that our skills were rare, and the powers they conferred were inherently magic - even if a bit dorky.

Re: We were wizards – a foreword to Learning Perl (1993)

#50

Perl was one of the first languages I learned and also the first language I used commercially. I have a huge soft spot for it as a language. Still love Perl regular expressions like no other. I loved the camel book and its various footnotes with both humour and deeper knowledge on a topic.

Right there with you.

No language even comes close to Perl’s regex support. First class support for regexes as programming tools, and unparalleled speed.

Post reply on HN