Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Perl is 26 Today

modernperlbooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 194 posts

Re: Perl is 26 Today

#71

Post by berntb »

nailer wrote: post #58
berntb wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really prefer Python threading to anything?! You haven't found any of the major Perl web frameworks? You haven't seen Moose for OO? perlbrew? (Don't get me started on list comprehension, extra stuff to learn because Python lack real maps with real lambdas.) And so on... Do you always have opinions on stuff you have no clue about?! Start with getting the Modern Perl book and read it (free pdf). Ask (/search) on Pe…

> You really prefer Python threading to anything?! The Python 'process' and 'queue' modules rock (yes, multiple single threaded processes still counts as multithreading). I've had apps on the front page of HN / Smashing Mag using them, happily taking advantage of a multicore server. I swear half the people who bitch about the GIL have never used either of these modules (not you, people in general).

I answered a comment re threading, not different multi process implementations.

(All the popular scripting languages have bad threading support and try to do everything with multiple processes, afaik. It should be possible to add good support, but I guess it isn't really worth it?)

Re: Perl is 26 Today

#72

Post by nailer »

berntb wrote: post #71
nailer wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You really prefer Python threading to anything?! The Python 'process' and 'queue' modules rock (yes, multiple single threaded processes still counts as multithreading). I've had apps on the front page of HN / Smashing Mag using them, happily taking advantage of a multicore server. I swear half the people who bitch about the GIL have never used either of these modules (not you, people in general).

I answered a comment re threading, not different multi process implementations. (All the popular scripting languages have bad threading support and try to do everything with multiple processes, afaik. It should be possible to add good support, but I guess it isn't really worth it?)

> I answered a comment re threading, not different multi process implementations.

I'd argue single process multiple threads, vs multiple process single thread, vs not blocking, are different solutions to the same problem:

    how do I take advantage of multiple cores?
Saying other solutions don't apply, despite solving the problem, is a bit arbitrary.

Re: Perl is 26 Today

#73

Post by liveoneggs »

lmm wrote: post #9
Surio wrote: post #2

I am a Perl user and I do like it very much (warts and all). This article reminded me of another self-deprecatory Perl article: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2012/12/18/perl-cobol.html And yes, as the article says, Here's to 26 more! :-)

That's an interesting article but seems to be missing the actual why of it. He still likes perl because... culture? Some people are still writing software in perl or cobol, sure - and some of that is good software that solves real problems. But the reason we think of the average programmer in one of these obsolete languages as "some sort of second-class technology citizen" is that, well, they are. Compared to the res…

wow. You're an unbelievable ass and, obviously, immature/inexperienced to boot.

Re: Perl is 26 Today

#74

Post by liveoneggs »

rikacomet wrote: post #27
mxey wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CGI is not the way to go today. If you want to build web pages with Perl, check out http://mojolicio.us

Might I ask, in a nutshell.. why not CGI?

you can deploy mojolicious as cgi. :)

It's really nice, though. Try out Mojolicious::Lite asap!

Re: Perl is 26 Today

#75

Post by artiom »

untothebreach wrote: post #30
rikacomet wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might I ask, in a nutshell.. why not CGI?

(classic) CGI requires a full application start-up every time a request comes in, and so is very slow. If you have to use CGI, use FCGI (fast cgi) to solve that problem. However, in recent years PSGI has started to become the standand in the community. As far as I know, it is modeled after Python's WSGI. All of the "major" perl web frameworks support it, the three big ones I can think of are Mojolicious[1], Dancer[2]…

There is Dancer2 as well https://metacpan.org/pod/Dancer2

Re: Perl is 26 Today

#76

Post by jerf »

melling wrote: post #67
arc_of_descent wrote: post #24

Been using Perl for almost 10 years now. I've used Perl for almost everything. Web development using CGI::Application, developing my own web framework, console apps (using the ncurses library), POE (Perl Object Environment), Web socket stuff and more. My main job currently involves maintaining and developing a huge code base in Perl including three websites (soon to expand to much more). Perl just works. I thoroughly…

Perl is definitely a cool language. I've used it for 15 years. However, I feel like it made a wrong turn somewhere and Ruby and Python both passed it. I've done a a little Ruby and some Python. They've never grabbed me like Perl, but practically speaking I don't think there are enough reasons to choose the 3rd most popular scripting language. (Btw, I've listened to the CPAN argument for 10 years. It's not enough)

The wrong turn was "Perl 6", and despite what you may think, the problem was more in the "6" than the "Perl". There's nothing wrong with Perl 6, except that it should have been called something else so it didn't convince people it was the next Perl version. The Perl community has now recovered from that, Perl 5 and Perl 6 are officially understood to be distinct languages that merely love each other very much, and Perl 5 development has resumed at full speed, but it lost a lot of time and mindshare before finally getting there. (Probably not a heck of a lot of use share, though. It's still there in a lot of places, working away, quietly.)

Re: Perl is 26 Today

#77

Post by collyw »

berntb wrote: post #21
collyw wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I moved from Perl to Python 3 years ago. Its true. Perl feels like a very powerful base language, moving to Python felt like you were taking a bit away (I know in reality you can probably achieve much the same things). Python on the other hand doesn't require you to implement your own basic functions (max, min , trim / strip ) as they are included already. Python stops me from shooting myself in the foot as often, by…

>> max, min [etc] Perl has a minimal std library, to teach people to use CPAN I guess. But even Perl has util modules for trivial help functions in the std install (at least those which aren't one line of code to define). The strongest argument for Perl today is CPAN and CPAN Testers, still the gold standard. But all the scripting languages are really similar, there is no reason to learn another if you already know o…

Django was the reason I switched. I gave Catalyst a go, but the ability to swap out almost every component left me wondering what the framework actually was. The documentation was significantly easier (for a newbie to web frameworks) to get something going. And the Django admin gave me a large chunk of what I wanted for very little effort.

Re: Perl is 26 Today

#78

Post by danielweber »

collyw wrote: post #7
AlexanderDhoore wrote: post #3

I'm a relatively new programmer. Been programming for around 4 years. I tried Perl, but felt like the world had moved on, so I never really committed to it. With PHP, Python, Ruby and Javascript... space seems tight for another scripting language. Languages like Lua have something special. What's special about Perl? Edit: I don't want to be hateful. The more the merrier obviously.

I moved from Perl to Python 3 years ago. Its true. Perl feels like a very powerful base language, moving to Python felt like you were taking a bit away (I know in reality you can probably achieve much the same things). Python on the other hand doesn't require you to implement your own basic functions (max, min , trim / strip ) as they are included already. Python stops me from shooting myself in the foot as often, by…

I used to use Perl. Then I followed Yegge's advice of "I will only use Perl if there's no other option, and there's always another option." https://sites.google.com/site/steveyegge2/ancient-languages-...

I'm not trying to dump on perl. I love C and C++ and those get dumped on all the time and I hate it. But anything I could do in Perl I instead do in Ruby. It's not as fast, but if fast matters I'm not supposed to use a scripting language.

Re: Perl is 26 Today

#79

Post by Mithaldu »

nailer wrote: post #72
berntb wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I answered a comment re threading, not different multi process implementations. (All the popular scripting languages have bad threading support and try to do everything with multiple processes, afaik. It should be possible to add good support, but I guess it isn't really worth it?)

> I answered a comment re threading, not different multi process implementations. I'd argue single process multiple threads, vs multiple process single thread, vs not blocking, are different solutions to the same problem: how do I take advantage of multiple cores? Saying other solutions don't apply, despite solving the problem, is a bit arbitrary.

As long as multi-processes can't share variables, nevermind complex data structures made of variables, they don't apply to the problem multi-threading solves.

Re: Perl is 26 Today

#80

Post by collyw »

vorg wrote: post #68
collyw wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I moved from Perl to Python 3 years ago. Its true. Perl feels like a very powerful base language, moving to Python felt like you were taking a bit away (I know in reality you can probably achieve much the same things). Python on the other hand doesn't require you to implement your own basic functions (max, min , trim / strip ) as they are included already. Python stops me from shooting myself in the foot as often, by…

> I moved from Perl to Python 3 years ago But Perl-like ambiguity still seeps into your English. Was that Python 3, or 3 years ago?

It's all implicit. Python 3 wasn't available "years ago", so I must have been moving to Python 2, 3 years ago.

(Ok, I just checked, Python 3 has been around longer than I thought).

Post reply on HN