[Gllug] re: OSS CMSs

[David Damerell]

On Friday, 29 Apr 2005, Aaron Trevena wrote:
>On 4/29/05, David Damerell <damerell at chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>Yes. What I'm driving at is a language with few possible subsets -
>>like C - suffers from this problem much less than one with very many,
>>like Perl. Most C programmers are familiar with essentially the same
>>bits of the language; the same is not true of Perl programmers.
>I'm sorry - just what are you basing this on?
>There aren't that many subsets of perl, in fact the syntax is fully
>covered in the Camel Book, including all the core methods.

Why does the fact that the book covers all the syntax mean that there
are not various subsets of it in which it is viable to program? Most
C++ books fully cover the language, too.

One obvious example is that one either does or does not use the
pseudo-OO syntax of Perl. I do not, and of course as a result when I
read code that does, I have to go and bone up on it because I'm not as
familiar with it as I could be. Conversely if someone who makes
extensive use of that syntax has to look at code that uses plain
nested data structures, they probably won't follow the idiom straight
off.

Is it really necessary that you interpret any criticism of Perl, even
from someone who likes the language and uses it extensively, as a
personal attack?

-- 
David Damerell <damerell at chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Aponoia, May.
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug