Live data from Hacker News

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

jwgoerlich.com

121–130 of 130 posts

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

#121

Learning Perl is imho the best book for beginning to code. It is clear, as short as it can be, fun, explains why not just how, encourages efficiency, has exercises, etc. To this day I still recommend it even if opportunities to use Perl are gone.

And, the latest edition of Learning Perl covers up to v5.34. I also provide additional exercises in Learning Perl Exercises (https://leanpub.com/learning_perl_exercises>), and cover new features in Perl New Features (https://leanpub.com/perl_new_features>) so I can update it faster than the paper books.

But yet, Randal had beat into me the idea of explaining "why" on everything. You'll notice the basic pattern in Learning Perl and my other writing is that we show the expedient thing, tell you how that fails, improve that a little, show how that fails, and end up at a better final solution. That path shows quite a bit that's ancillary to the task at hand, but also shows how the pieces work together and how different parts affect the solution. I'm usually frustrated by other language tutorials where they say "just do this" without saying anything about why the various parts are there.

Learning Perl was originally written with a C programmer audience, so it assumes that the reader is comfortable with ideas such as variables and looping. I have another book I might recommend for beginning to code: Squeak: Learn Programming with Robots. Sure, it's Smalltalk and literally written for teenagers, but I think it works. It reminds me of the fun days of Logo.

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

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last year I finished over a decade on very large Perl project, collaborating within a team. When I joined that project it was already over a decade old a most of the code was much like what you are probably imagining. When I left the project, all the parts we had touched were much like any other high quality modern codebase, and we could almost as readily maintain the decade-old parts (that we had worked on) as the w…

The advantage of bad perl is that it pretty much is immediately obvious on first sight that it's bad perl. Compare with python, it takes thought and time to identify bad python because it's so syntacticly bland.

With python, write enough of it and you'll be able to spot bad python code just fine. If I don't have Perl muscle memory exercised enough, the same problem telling good and bad Perl code exists too, but it's the other way around — it's all bad until proved otherwise.

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

#123
post #117
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now thanks to Devin, anyone can have that skill!

But AI can never replace the human dorkiness I bring to a project.

You should try asking ChatGPT about Lord of the Rings esoterica. You might be surprised.

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

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Perl gets installed wherever `git` CLI is available, generally. I'd say it's more ubiquitous. And it doesn't suffer from the python2/3 split.

not to mention the perl5 / perl6 split

perl6 is now called raku

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

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You will look up how to interpret `match` whenever you see it and you will like it. One way to do things? Pfffft.

Oh, it lost that a long time ago. (e.g. string formatting methods).

However, this was around 2005 or so and at the time, Python was significantly smaller (conceptually) than Perl. Atleast to me.

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

#126

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.

I get that. My gold standard for technical writing was (and mostly still is), the C programming language by K&R. Brief, to the point and not missing anything. It's what I expected from the Perl book but didn't get.

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

#127

Every time I see a Polish domain name I am reminded at how obsessed that country is with Perl.

Speaking of that:

   .sh  Saint Helena
   .py  Paraguay
   .rs  Serbia
   .md  Moldova
   .tf  French Southern and Antarctic Lands
   .cc  Cocos Islands
   .so  Somalia
   .bz  Belize
   .ps  Palestine

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

#129

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 R…

Indeed, I started programming early (age 9 or so) and have always seemed to have a talent for programming, but also just a sense that it's fun to work out how to express steps in terms of smaller reusable steps.

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

#130

I was interested to learn on a recent episode of FLOSS Weekly [1] that Randal Schwartz had moved on from Perl somewhat and is now effectively an MVP and trainer of Dart and Flutter. [1] https://hackaday.com/2024/01/09/floss-weekly-episode-765-tha...

Schwartz basically rode his early fame into the ground. While the world was moving on from Perl (especially after the community completely fractured and started disintegrating during the early days of Perl6, now Raku), he doubled down, but also didn't really produce much or engage with community. The Perl work around the world was drying up. He ended up begging online instead of pivoting. Glad to know he finally did…

This is a fair observation. At most, my FLOSS Weekly fame was still propelling my career, but I also gave that up after 13 years. It took a while to find my Dart/Flutter groove, but here I am.
Post reply on HN