🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4fjvh5$k83@news1.radix.net> yml@radix.net (root) writes:
> John Viega (jtv2j@garnet.cs.virginia.edu) wrote:
> : implementing others difficult, that I would hardly expect any language
> : to be all things to all people.  However,  I think that it is quite
> : unfortunate that the languages that see the most use and support today
> : cater to the beginning programmer not at all.
> 
> Why limit a lifetime of professional programming convenience by optimizing
> the design of a language for the first few months of a learning curve?
> 
> It's like tutorial books vs. refernce books. Learning Perl in 21 days is
> going to be useful to you for, oh, about 21 days, yet the "advanced"
> terse "difficult to understand" Perl reference will be useful for a 
> professional eternity.

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.

While you may fancy yourself a good enough programmer that you can
code in Perl as fast as anything, Perl has really shown itself to be a
"write only" language.  While you may not agree, I think that the more
people who can read my programs, the better.  I don't see why someone
should need to be an experienced to expert programmer just to be able
to make some sense of my code.

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    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------