🚀 go-pugleaf

Tom Christiansen writes:
 | In comp.lang.perl.misc, rust@Virginia.EDU writes:
 | :There is no need to sacrifice power for ease of use and learnability.
 | :There are a handful of languages at least as powerful as Perl, and
 | :several times more readable.
 | 
 | Name them.

Python, Icon, and ML all come to the top of my head.  Of course, since
all languages have their strengths and weaknesses, it depends where
you want your power.  As a general purpose more powerful language that
is also easier to use than Perl, I'd also suggest any member of the
Modula/Oberon family.  

However, let us not overlook that both power and readability are a bit
subjective.  What is obvious code to you might not be obfuscated to
me, and vice-versa.


 | If someone can't write perl programs that can be read by other programmers
 | of that language, that says more about the programmer than it does the
 | language.  

But it still can say something about the language, especially if
people complain in droves about how much the language detracts from
readability, like people do with Perl.  I don't see many complaints
about how easy it is to write hard to read Python programs.

John

------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|John Viega        	              "Non-structurally equivolent types in C |
|rust@virginia.edu                     are polymorphic vis-a-vis their common |
|http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~jtv2j/    entity, the core dump."                |
|University of Virginia                                  --George Williams    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------