In article <uvbe3m$2cun7$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
....
>I've programmed in Perl but I'm no Perl-programmer notwithstanding.

That's like saying "Yeah, I've had sex with men, but that don't make gay..."

--
I don't do things wrong.
I do things right.

I'm a legitimate person.

In article <uvbfii$3mom0$1@news.xmission.com>,
Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>In article <uvbe3m$2cun7$1@dont-email.me>,
>Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>...
>>I've programmed in Perl but I'm no Perl-programmer notwithstanding.
>
>That's like saying "Yeah, I've had sex with men, but that don't make gay..."

That's like saying "Yeah, I've had sex with men, but that don't make me gay..."

(Left out a critical word. Damn cheap keyboard...)

>--
>I don't do things wrong.
>I do things right.
>
>I'm a legitimate person.

--
Adderall, pseudoephed, teleprompter

On 2024-04-12, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
> In article <uvbe3m$2cun7$1@dont-email.me>,
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>>I've programmed in Perl but I'm no Perl-programmer notwithstanding.
>
> That's like saying "Yeah, I've had sex with men, but that don't make gay..."

I've programmed so little in Perl in such distant nineties, that
it's analogous to only having seen the shower scene in /Midnight Express/.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:

> On 2024-04-12, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>> In article <uvbe3m$2cun7$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>>I've programmed in Perl but I'm no Perl-programmer notwithstanding.
>>
>> That's like saying "Yeah, I've had sex with men, but that don't make gay..."
>
> I've programmed so little in Perl in such distant nineties, that
> it's analogous to only having seen the shower scene in /Midnight Express/.

I programmed in Perl to filter log files, but then I got to The AWK
Programming Language book. Sadly, I never wrote another Perl. I don't
think I do very well with sophisticated languages. I feel I need a
single reasonable way of doing things.

Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> wrote or quoted:
>I programmed in Perl to filter log files, but then I got to The AWK >Programming Language book. Sadly, I never wrote another Perl. I don't
>think I do very well with sophisticated languages. I feel I need a
>single reasonable way of doing things.

Perl:

The motto of the Perl community is, "There's More Than One Way
To Do It," or TMTOWDI (pronounced "Tim Toady").

Python:

There should be one - and preferably only one - obvious way
to do it. Although that way may not be obvious at first unless
you're Dutch.

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:

> Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> wrote or quoted:
>>I programmed in Perl to filter log files, but then I got to The AWK
>> >Programming Language book. Sadly, I never wrote another Perl. I
>> don't
>>think I do very well with sophisticated languages. I feel I need a
>>single reasonable way of doing things.
>
> Perl:
>
> The motto of the Perl community is, "There's More Than One Way
> To Do It," or TMTOWDI (pronounced "Tim Toady").
>
> Python:
>
> There should be one - and preferably only one - obvious way
> to do it. Although that way may not be obvious at first unless
> you're Dutch.

Why Dutch? Unless I understand Guido van Rossum very well? :)

Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> wrote or quoted:
>ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>>There should be one - and preferably only one - obvious way
>>to do it. Although that way may not be obvious at first unless
>>you're Dutch.
>Why Dutch? Unless I understand Guido van Rossum very well? :)

Sometimes, there seem to be some choices how to do something in
Python.

On 13 Apr 2024 08:18:07 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote:

> Python:
>
> There should be one - and preferably only one - obvious way to do it.
> Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.

Actually, given the overlap between functions and classes, there are often
multiple ways to do things.

Unlike Perl, most of them will be more-or-less comprehensible.

Algol 68 was also masterminded by a Netherlander, who was also the pioneer
of two-level grammars: Aard van Wijngaarden.

Coincidence? You be the judge.

Den 2024-03-29 skrev Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>:
> At one time, we distinguished between “scripting” languages and
> “programming” languages. To begin with, the “scripting” languages were
> somehow more limited in functionality than full-fledged “programming”
> languages. Or they were slower, because they were interpreted.
>

I guess this could be a language thing since English is not my first
language, but I have never encountered this distinction between
programming languages and scripting languages before. I have always
seen scripting languages as a subset of programming languages. In
Swedish, scripting languages are referred to as programspråk or
programmeringsspråk, i.e. program languages or programming languages,
just as C/C++/whatever.

My personal view of a scripting languages' defining trait has been that
you distribute human readable code for a scripting language. You don't
compile it to something else before shipping it to the consumer. It is
always translated or interpreted by the consumer, but as all rules
have exceptions, I'm sure there are some good ones to this as well.

In comp.unix.shell Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I've programmed in Perl but I'm no Perl-programmer notwithstanding.
> Some more or less obvious reasons I see...
> Abstraction of diverse Unix utilities' interfaces.
> (...)
> Supporting data structures (beyond primitive arrays).
> Less quirks than Shell. (I'm saying that as an experienced Shell programmer.)

I find perl much more quirky. Among many other things, it lacks an
straightforward support of nested data structures (you neeed to use
something called references), as it flattens nested arrays automatically.
That was an erroneous early design decission.

$ clisp <<< "(print '(1 2 3 (4 5)))"
....
(1 2 3 (4 5))

$ python3 <<< "print((1,2,3,(4,5)))"
(1, 2, 3, (4, 5))

$ perl -e "use Data::Dumper; @a=(1,2,3,(4,5)); print Dumper(\@a)"
$VAR1 = [
1,
2,
3,
4,
5
];

That being said, no other language comes close in conciseness when it
comes to text processing and interacting with the OS (filesystem, pipes, etc).
Any other language is too verbose for those tasks.

https://wiki.c2.com/?WhyLovePerl

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 20:41:28 +0000, Javier wrote:

> I find perl much more quirky. Among many other things, it lacks an
> straightforward support of nested data structures (you neeed to use
> something called references), as it flattens nested arrays
> automatically. That was an erroneous early design decission.

Is *that* where PHP got that stupid idea from? Only its attempt to patch
them up with “references” just created a new mess.

> That being said, no other language comes close in conciseness when
> it comes to text processing and interacting with the OS (filesystem,
> pipes, etc). Any other language is too verbose for those tasks.

Other languages can offer more expressive facilities, though. This can
make the code easier to follow.

On 12.04.2024 16:15, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <uvbfii$3mom0$1@news.xmission.com>,
> Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>> In article <uvbe3m$2cun7$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>> I've programmed in Perl but I'm no Perl-programmer notwithstanding.
>>
>> That's like saying "Yeah, I've had sex with men, but that don't make gay..."
>
> That's like saying "Yeah, I've had sex with men, but that don't make me gay..."

LOL, yeah. - But the point is that my valuation what constitutes a
"programmer" needs quite a bit more expertise than I have. (YMMV.)

All that I've done in Perl programming was to infer some knowledge
from other languages or libraries and to expand existing programs
to my needs. And it was not even a month I spent for coding Perl.
I also do know a bit Perl concepts from literature, but that's it.

If that experience is what already constitutes a programmer then I
understand why so much existing software is so bad. :-)

(But, yeah, _technically_ I became have become a Perl programmer.
Just don't count on any deep experience. And I'll also reject any
Perl job offers. ;-)

Janis

Javier wrote:

> That being said, no other language comes close in conciseness when it
> comes to text processing and interacting with the OS (filesystem, pipes,
> etc).
> Any other language is too verbose for those tasks.

Perhaps no other language, but i could imagine e.g. a library for a
language getting there.

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to Hawk│/blu.mɛin.dʰak/│he/him/his/himself/Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
As always.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 12:43:56 -0000 (UTC), Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:

> .. i could imagine e.g. a library for a language getting there.

Especially a language that is particularly versatile and adaptable to
defining DSLs.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 22:12:23 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 12:43:56 -0000 (UTC), Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>
> > .. i could imagine e.g. a library for a language getting there.
>
> Especially a language that is particularly versatile and adaptable to
> defining DSLs.

*waits for a Forth-head to chime in*

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:29:51 -0700, John Ames wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 22:12:23 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Especially a language that is particularly versatile and adaptable to
>> defining DSLs.
>
> *waits for a Forth-head to chime in*

Forth? Not a chance. That’s only fit for a museum. Whatever interesting
features it might have had were carried over to PostScript, which took
things to the next level.

On 16/04/2024 00:58, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:29:51 -0700, John Ames wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 22:12:23 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Especially a language that is particularly versatile and adaptable to
>>> defining DSLs.
>>
>> *waits for a Forth-head to chime in*

What about Scala? I don't the language myself, but I believe it is
popular as a basis for DSL's.

>
> Forth? Not a chance. That’s only fit for a museum. Whatever interesting
> features it might have had were carried over to PostScript, which took
> things to the next level.

Forth is alive and well, albeit not very common. It is used in embedded
systems - it is almost certainly the smallest language and run-time
system where you can have a extendable high-level language, and runs
directly on even very small microcontrollers. Within the same language,
you can glide between higher level words and Forth-style assembly for
low-level code. And you can pretty much freely choose where you draw
the line between pre-compiled code for maximal efficiency and
interpreted code for maximal convenience and development speed. I've
even seen a system with a soft processor (i.e., one made in a hardware
design language for use in FPGA's or gate array ASICs) written in Forth,
where you can move the boundaries between the parts that are implemented
in hardware and the parts in software.

Forth is also the basis for the assembly and code for most stack-based
processors, which are used whenever the smallest die area is needed. In
particular, 4-bit microcontroller programming is dominated by Forth.
You don't normally see such chips, because they are hidden inside
devices and these days only found within other chips (the last
general-purpose easily available 4-bit microcontroller line was
discontinued about a decade ago).

New Forth-native hardware has been made in recent times, such as the
GreenArray chips.

The latest Forth standard is from 2012, I believe.

Forth is certainly old, and certainly a very unusual language that is
hard for outsiders to comprehend, and certainly not a particularly
popular language, but it is equally certainly still used.

(I am not a "Forth-head", and know only a little of the language, but
happen to have learned a bit from real Forth-heads.)

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:14:38 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>Forth is also the basis for the assembly and code for most stack-based
>processors, which are used whenever the smallest die area is needed. In
>particular, 4-bit microcontroller programming is dominated by Forth.
>You don't normally see such chips, because they are hidden inside
>devices and these days only found within other chips (the last
>general-purpose easily available 4-bit microcontroller line was
>discontinued about a decade ago).

Old style digital watches maybe?

On 16/04/2024 10:35, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:14:38 +0200
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> Forth is also the basis for the assembly and code for most stack-based
>> processors, which are used whenever the smallest die area is needed. In
>> particular, 4-bit microcontroller programming is dominated by Forth.
>> You don't normally see such chips, because they are hidden inside
>> devices and these days only found within other chips (the last
>> general-purpose easily available 4-bit microcontroller line was
>> discontinued about a decade ago).
>
> Old style digital watches maybe?
>

Sure. And calculators, remote controls, microwave ovens, wireless keys
(cars, garages, etc.), and vast numbers of other devices. 4-bit
stack-based microcontrollers were a tiny fraction of the die size (and
therefore cost) of even 8-bit devices, and used a tiny fraction of the
power (and therefore could have battery lifetimes of a decade or more).

Stand-alone 4-bit microcontrollers are a thing of the past, but you
still get them inside other chips as sequencers and handling things like
startups or calibration sequences.

On 2024-04-16, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

> Forth is alive and well, albeit not very common. It is used in embedded
> systems - it is almost certainly the smallest language and run-time
> system where you can have a extendable high-level language, and runs
> directly on even very small microcontrollers.

It has also been used since circa 1999 as the embedded language of
the FreeBSD boot loader, another constrained environment. In the
end Forth proved too unpopular, few people touched it, and it is
being replaced with Lua now.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

On 16/04/2024 12:58, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2024-04-16, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
>> Forth is alive and well, albeit not very common. It is used in embedded
>> systems - it is almost certainly the smallest language and run-time
>> system where you can have a extendable high-level language, and runs
>> directly on even very small microcontrollers.
>
> It has also been used since circa 1999 as the embedded language of
> the FreeBSD boot loader, another constrained environment. In the
> end Forth proved too unpopular, few people touched it, and it is
> being replaced with Lua now.
>

People who have used Forth a lot tend to be very enthusiastic about it,
but it has a long learning curve to get up to speed. This is a big
disadvantage compared to "competitors" like Lua. It is perhaps fair to
say that Forth is alive and well as long as its current users are alive
and well - as they retire, there are relatively few newcomers to the
Forth community.

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:58:49 -0000 (UTC)
Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
>the FreeBSD boot loader, another constrained environment. In the
>end Forth proved too unpopular, few people touched it, and it is
>being replaced with Lua now.

So moving from one language hardly anyone uses to another that hardly anyone
uses. You can't deny the consistency.

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:00:16 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>On 16/04/2024 12:58, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>> It has also been used since circa 1999 as the embedded language of
>> the FreeBSD boot loader, another constrained environment. In the
>> end Forth proved too unpopular, few people touched it, and it is
>> being replaced with Lua now.
>>
>
>People who have used Forth a lot tend to be very enthusiastic about it,

Tbh most people who use a language a lot tend to promote it over others they
don't know. Ask any Python, C++, Java, C# dev what the best language is and
90% of the time they'll say the language they use. For Rust probably 99.99%
but that seems to be becoming more of a cult than a language.

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes:
>On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:58:49 -0000 (UTC)
>Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
>>the FreeBSD boot loader, another constrained environment. In the
>>end Forth proved too unpopular, few people touched it, and it is
>>being replaced with Lua now.
>
>So moving from one language hardly anyone uses to another that hardly anyone
>uses. You can't deny the consistency.
>

We use lua rather extensively in multiple products.

You seem to do nothing but criticize others.

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote at 14:51 this Tuesday (GMT):
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:00:16 +0200
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>On 16/04/2024 12:58, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>>> It has also been used since circa 1999 as the embedded language of
>>> the FreeBSD boot loader, another constrained environment. In the
>>> end Forth proved too unpopular, few people touched it, and it is
>>> being replaced with Lua now.
>>>
>>
>>People who have used Forth a lot tend to be very enthusiastic about it,
>
> Tbh most people who use a language a lot tend to promote it over others they
> don't know. Ask any Python, C++, Java, C# dev what the best language is and
> 90% of the time they'll say the language they use. For Rust probably 99.99%
> but that seems to be becoming more of a cult than a language.

Agreed, it feels like everyone is praising Rust.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom