🚀 go-pugleaf

In <108721@convex.convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
>
>>And if you just want to stick to sh for the automation, do so. Why learn
>>a different language---whether TCL or Perl---if you don't have to?
>
>Because, Dan, when we're too old to learn something new, we're already
>dead and someone might as well just shoot us so the rest of the world can
>get on with life....
>
>Please stop disparaging other people's work, and please stop the constant
>commercials for your own, at least on a daily basis.  There is a time and
>a place for everything....
>
>Learn something new every day.

A bit preachy, aren't we?  Maybe it was called for.  Anyway, this is
not my battle.

Most of us just don't have the time to get carried along by each new
language, as it appears.  We must be selective, learning thoroughly
only those tools which are a) widely installed and b) sufficient for
our purposes.  While Perl might be sufficient for many purposes, it
certainly isn't portable in the same sense that csh and sh are.

I'm not defending the notion that no one should bother with Perl.  In
fact, I hope people do.  If it does in fact stabilize, and get good
documentation, and become widely installed, then I will most definitely
want to use it in place of ugly conglomerations of sed, awk, and sh.

-Richard (goer@sophist.uchicago.edu)