Live data from Hacker News

Perl's decline was cultural

beatworm.co.uk

131–140 of 472 posts

Re: Perl's decline was cultural

#131
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 2000’s Python was also a sysadmin language. Edit: But I see your point, Google SRE’s around the late 2000’s reached for Python more than Perl.

I think Perl is still more popular even today than Python as a sysadmin language. Late 2000s it certainly was. Maybe Google was different, but across the industry more widely Python was barely used, Perl was used everywhere.

My experience:

Sysadmin-driven companies (typically Sun-based) often used Perl.

Developer-driven companies used other languages running on cheaper X86 Linux.

Re: Perl's decline was cultural

#132
post #8

I always found the Perl "community" to be really off-putting with all the monk and wizard nonsense. Then there was the whole one-liner thing that was all about being clever and obscure. Everything about Python came off as being much more serious and normal for a young nerd who wasn't a theater kid.

I'm having to pick up some perl now, and while I don't interact with the community, it surely _feels_ like it was written by wizards, for wizards. Obscure, non-intuitive oneliners, syntax that feels like it was intentionally written to be complicated, and a few other things that feel impossible to understand without reading the docs. (Before everyone jumps on me - yes, as a developer, I should be able to read documen…

> Some of it I recognize as being an artefact of the time, when conciseness really mattered

It was an artefact of bursting out of those constraints, but honoring them still. The roots of perl as a “more capable, less restrictive” sed/awk means that it must support `perl -pi.bak -e oneliner file`, just like sed did — and so from that core requirement forward, everything it did, does. By the heyday of Perl5 era, conciseness was not a requirement, but the sed-compat roots remained a focus of the language’s creator.

Re: Perl's decline was cultural

#133
post #100

There was a lot of pressure in the Perl community to write things as succinctly as possible instead of as maintainably and understandably. That’s not realistic for use in a field with a lot of turnover and job hopping.

There was no such pressure. That's ridiculous. There were a lot of things people could grab as reasons to form an opinion without even reading articles, never mind the tutorial. They then ended up with php or python, even java for crying out loud, and years later THAT was a problem.

> There was no such pressure. That's ridiculous.

I lived it. I'm sure there's still some Mailing List archives and IRC snippets that still endure, demonstrating the utter vicious 1-upmanship of how to do something in Perl as succinctly as possible. Why do X and Y when you can just do Z? What are you really trying to do? etc.

Re: Perl's decline was cultural

#134
> [TIMTOWTDI] literally means 'there is more than one way to do it in Perl' - and you can perhaps infer from that that there's little to no reason to do it using anything else

Not my experience at all, FWIW. For me, and the vast majority of Perl devs I’ve worked with over the past 30 years, TIMTOWTDI absolutely means some of the “ways to do it” don’t involve Perl, and that’s not only OK but expected. Of course Perl isn’t the be all/end all. It’s a lot of fun though!

(I’m a majority Perl coder to this day, it’s my favourite language by far. Hell, I even find it readable and easy/fun to debug)

Re: Perl's decline was cultural

#135
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was so much complexity hidden behind "do what I mean". For example, scalar vs array context which was super subtle: my @var = @array # copy the array my $var = @array # return the count of elements in array

Or even worse: my($f) = `fortune`; # assigns first line of output to $f. my $f = `fortune`; # assign all output to $f. Which allegedly got a HS kid in hot water[^1]. [^1]: "It's all about context" (2001): https://archive.ph/IB2kR ( http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/UnixReview/col38.html )

I think what's most likely to happen here is that: * a developer that knew how it worked used it in code where he *wanted* to get the first line * someone just starting up copied it over and assumed that's the way to get the content of command into a variable

It's essentially complaining about using feature wrong on purpose, because the person that made mistake never learned the language.

my($var1, $var2...) is a way to multi-assign variables from an array.

and that makes perfect sense when you look at it. Perl have no multiple returns, but if you need a function that returns 2 variables it is very easy to make it work with:

    my ($bandwidth, $latency) = speedtest($host)

Perl's feature for returning different type depending on caller is definitely a confusing part but

    my @lines = `fortune`
returning lines makes perfect sense for the use case (you call external commands to parse its output, and if you do that you generally want it in lines, because then you can just do

   foreach my $line (`fortune`) {}
and it "just works".

Now you might ask "why make such shortcuts?". Well, one of big mistakes when making Perl is that it was also aimed as replacement for sed/awk for the oneliners, so language is peppered with "clever short ways to do stuff", and it's a pleasure to use in quick ad-hoc oneliners for CLI.... but then people try to use same cleverness in the actual code and it ends up with the unreadable mess people know Perl for.

the fact you can do

    my ($first_line, $second_line, ...) = `fortune`
is just the feature being.... consistent in its use "when you give it array, it will fill it with lines from the executed command"

you gave it array, and it just did what it does with arrays.

Re: Perl's decline was cultural

#136
post #8

I always found the Perl "community" to be really off-putting with all the monk and wizard nonsense. Then there was the whole one-liner thing that was all about being clever and obscure. Everything about Python came off as being much more serious and normal for a young nerd who wasn't a theater kid.

I'm having to pick up some perl now, and while I don't interact with the community, it surely _feels_ like it was written by wizards, for wizards. Obscure, non-intuitive oneliners, syntax that feels like it was intentionally written to be complicated, and a few other things that feel impossible to understand without reading the docs. (Before everyone jumps on me - yes, as a developer, I should be able to read documen…

Yup, Perl is something clearly out of Unseen University, err I mean Berkeley linguistics dept.

I liked it, thought the sigils were a cute way to singal that something is a variable. When you work with deeply nested data structures, dereferencing arrays and hashes that sort of changes and becomes kind of annoying. Nowadays I like Ruby. Compared to it, Perl does feel like spells mixed with C and Posix stuff. But if I want to feel smart, I'll write some code in Scheme, thank you.

Re: Perl's decline was cultural

#137
post #100

There was a lot of pressure in the Perl community to write things as succinctly as possible instead of as maintainably and understandably. That’s not realistic for use in a field with a lot of turnover and job hopping.

There was no such pressure. That's ridiculous. There were a lot of things people could grab as reasons to form an opinion without even reading articles, never mind the tutorial. They then ended up with php or python, even java for crying out loud, and years later THAT was a problem.

There wasn't pressure to write concise code exactly, but if you posted your code somewhere the odds were good that somebody would reply with a way to do the same thing with less code, followed by someone else who managed to shave several lines/characters off of that, etc.

While almost all of the time it was all just people having fun (perl is fun and play was encouraged) and not an admonishment of the code you'd posted or an example of how it should have been written I can see how some folks might have gotten that impression. Especially if they were new to perl and were more used to languages where TIMTOWTDI wasn't thing

Re: Perl's decline was cultural

#138
The number of blogs posted on here by people who can’t be arsed to make their writing legible on mobile blows my mind. Did everybody just skip the section of their CSS journey that covered media queries or what?

I enjoyed the article but it was a nightmare to read on my phone’s browser

Re: Perl's decline was cultural

#139

The lede says Perl died because it was "reactionary" and "culturally conservative", but the content says Perl died because it had bad culture, the culture of angry, socially corrosive anonymous internet commenters. If Perl had had a good culture, then conserving it would have been good!

A good culture, as time goes, is not reactionary and conservative, if only because it opens itself to the contribution of the younger generations.

Re: Perl's decline was cultural

#140
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no such pressure. That's ridiculous. There were a lot of things people could grab as reasons to form an opinion without even reading articles, never mind the tutorial. They then ended up with php or python, even java for crying out loud, and years later THAT was a problem.

> There was no such pressure. That's ridiculous. I lived it. I'm sure there's still some Mailing List archives and IRC snippets that still endure, demonstrating the utter vicious 1-upmanship of how to do something in Perl as succinctly as possible. Why do X and Y when you can just do Z? What are you really trying to do? etc.

You COULD, if you wanted, and spent quite a bit of effort in the pursuit of that hobby, participate in one-liner, or obfuscation, or golfing friendly contests. Which were enabled by perl's expressiveness constructs. Nobody pushed anyone into that. On the contrary "there is more than one way to do it" was there to legitimize that getting the problem solved was the goal - instead of trying to force a one true way (like python).

After that, experts would often propose multiple ways to do something when they answered questions. THEY found that intellectually playful and exciting. They still do. And for the rest of us, that was an amazing way to learn more and understand more of that tool we were using daily. Still is.

You apparently saw viciousness in this and that certainly sucks.

Post reply on HN