🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3n3d0m$3i2@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
Bob Manson <manson@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
: It seems like Tom is trying to say "gee, Perl does all this, just use
: Perl, and forget about enhancing gawk". Many folks don't like Perl,
: because of confused syntax trying to look like TECO or other bizarre
: feeps, so that's not necessarily a terribly helpful or useful
: suggestion.

Yes, some folks feel this way, but we can certainly discuss the extent
to which they might be wrong.  In fact, we ought to discuss this sort
of thing.  Ignorance flows like water, but knowledge must be pushed.

: I don't like the idea of adding every bug/feature in the known
: universe to gawk either, but rather than suggest "use Perl" I'll
: suggest thinking about what gawk is good at and improving those
: features, instead of trying to add lots of useless and obscure feeps
: in order to turn it into a sploding mass of seeting putrid
: obscenities.

Er, pardon me, sir, but your straw man appears to have caught on fire.
Would you like me to call the fire department?

[Though I must say, I admire your use of English.  I really like
English too, in case you hadn't noticed.  It's lovely to be able
to communicate in such a rich medium, no?]

: Yes, people will write code for "gawk". Yes, people write code for
: "gcc", "g++", and "bash" too. It sucks, but you can't force people to
: write portable code. That doesn't mean that one shouldn't add new
: features to programming languages either, or that two shouldn't use
: them. Three, I say. Four.

I'm not against the development of programming languages.  :-)

Please tell me what you think is useless in Perl that isn't deprecated
in Perl 5.  I'm not really much interested in your white blood cell
count--show me some specific antibodies, and I'll tell you whether
you're just having an allergic reaction.

Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com