>>14I immediately recognized you as the guy who goes into every thread and calls everyone he disagrees with a child or kid. Take a look at yourself. And are you seriously turning this into a functional programming debate? That's part of your reasoning for perl's pitfalls? It's not functional? What a silly person who criticizes something for not being something it was never intended to be.
My quote was off, but yours is irrelevant.
Perl is designed to give you several ways to do anything, so consider picking the most readable one.
From the perl man page. The point stands. Most of the criticism on perl code is regarding code that wasn't written well in the first place.
Your links to the scoping discussion didn't refute the fact that perl does have lexical scoping.
Yeah, confusion, since you can change your scope on the fly! How secure my system will be[i]![/i]
Again, you seem to revolve your argument around this idea that if you CAN make your code to look or behave bad, then the language in which it was written in was bad as well. You can do this with any language.
And I brought C into the conversation⸮ Lame diversion tactic.
Way to miss the point. The point being, if something like C (which is void of all the ``features'' that something like C++ and Java has) can be made to look bad, anything can.
Yeah, we needed something quick so we can talk to each other while engineer on our spare time something better.
And this is a great reason to use perl. Anyone knowledgeable in it can cut projects down into a tiny fraction. There are applications where the tradeoffs are definitely worth it.
Defending Lua doesn't help you. Lua has such simple fundamental problems that I'm shocked to find anyone writing code in it.
It's one based
Variables are global by default
assignments don't return anything (this one really is crippling for the purpose lua is trying to serve)
I maintain, Perl is much better than the alternatives in its' class (Python, Ruby, Lua, etc.)