>Perl is probably closest of the modern ones. But I talked about those I know.
I'm not convinced. :)
>Pity it lost out in the market place.
The games not over yet. Clojure has been coming on strong lately.
>Afaik, you don't get language extensions like a new OO system in Java...?
You're running into a "good is the enemy of the great" issue here. Perl probably has Moose because the "OO" it comes with it is awful. Java actually has a pretty workable OO system right out of the box, so no one is willing to go to the trouble to put something even better on when they could just write more code with what they have. I'll give you that modifying the language is easier in perl if you need to.
>So after comparing with CL for flexibility -- you compare amount of libraries with a system language, with roughly half the development speed (and a lot more pain) compared to scripting languages and Lisp...?
The point of that example was purely to counter the oft claimed "CPAN has more libraries than any other language!". It's not true, though the libraries it has might be easier to find than some.
>Oh, please... that was irrelevant bashing.
I just get tired of hearing about Larry's supposed linguist credentials. Perl has English behavior and it's amusing to me that a supposed linguist would pick language features that cause the most misunderstandings in real life! Why on earth would I want my programming language to be as prone to misunderstanding as spoken language? That's the exact opposite of what I actually want.
>>You're running into a "good is the enemy of the great" issue here.
Perl, as opposed to e.g. Java, has a tradition of being extensible; Moose is not the only example.
Common Lisp wasn't OO in the first silver book either.
>>counter the oft claimed "CPAN has more libraries than any other language!". It's not true, though the libraries it has might be easier to find than some.
Not what I wrote; I wrote "The Perl feature is that it is flexible. You'll get more library and language capabilities with CPAN than using anything else I know of."
You needed to go to Lisp (which sadly isn't really commercial today) for flexibility -- and Java for libraries. (And as you note -- I'm willing to believe there is more open source for Java, but finding it...?)
Re linguists -- you need to give exact examples of your claims for me to understand what you talk about. Compare with e.g. German, as you claimed there were some difference?
I'm not convinced. :)
>Pity it lost out in the market place.
The games not over yet. Clojure has been coming on strong lately.
>Afaik, you don't get language extensions like a new OO system in Java...?
You're running into a "good is the enemy of the great" issue here. Perl probably has Moose because the "OO" it comes with it is awful. Java actually has a pretty workable OO system right out of the box, so no one is willing to go to the trouble to put something even better on when they could just write more code with what they have. I'll give you that modifying the language is easier in perl if you need to.
>So after comparing with CL for flexibility -- you compare amount of libraries with a system language, with roughly half the development speed (and a lot more pain) compared to scripting languages and Lisp...?
The point of that example was purely to counter the oft claimed "CPAN has more libraries than any other language!". It's not true, though the libraries it has might be easier to find than some.
>Oh, please... that was irrelevant bashing.
I just get tired of hearing about Larry's supposed linguist credentials. Perl has English behavior and it's amusing to me that a supposed linguist would pick language features that cause the most misunderstandings in real life! Why on earth would I want my programming language to be as prone to misunderstanding as spoken language? That's the exact opposite of what I actually want.