Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Perl

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-13 18:02

What do you think of using Perl? If you don't like it, which scripting language do you prefer?

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-13 23:02

nobody liked my thread <:'^(

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-13 23:04

This talk is about why Perl 5 sucks (although Perl 6 became arguably worse, just it's grammar file counts about 6500 lines: https://github.com/perl6/std/blob/master/STD.pm6).
- Abominable syntax: Perl's syntax is so non-orthogonal and hideous, it shades all other Perl warts (which are ugly). Perl's grammar isn't context free and can not be reduced to BNF. Perl's parser (perly.y) is 760 lines long (larger than C++ and Haskell), while the lexer (toke.c) is 11000 lines long, which gives a clue how many kludges Perl needs that the parser can't handle itself. Perl grammar is inherently ambiguous, and the resolved by using dodgy look-ahead heuristics. For example, is "print $f +$g" writing the positive value $g to the file $f, or printing ($f+$g) to STDOUT? Does `{ local $a => 1; ... "` start a scope block or a hash? Other example `f / 25 ; # / ; die "oops!";` can parse two different ways: if `f` takes no arguments, then first statement is a division in void context, and the rest of the line is a comment, otherwise it parses as a call to f() with the result of a match operator, then a call to die(). In general, Perl cannot be parsed, because Perl's syntax is undecidable: http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=663393
- Broken scoping: Perl doesn't require variables to be declared and just referencing a name introduces a variable, resulting into cluttered global scope and absence of undefined-variable warnings. Although Perl has my and local keywords, they are not enforced, so nobody uses them. All variables have to be prefixed with ugly $ @ % & sigils all time, just to disambiguate in case variable doesn't already hold a value. It is typical to see crazy code, like "my $fh = do {local(*FH);};", which creates a local typeglob named FH and immediately takes it out of scope, returning the now anonymous typeglob. Perl's broken scoping is a fundamental flaw, which cannot be fixed.
- Inconsistent type system: Perl implicitly coerces strings to integers, so "123abc"=="123def" and " 123xyz"==123, and even 0.0=="". Sigils everywhere make type system depend on scoping. No OOP encapsulation or overloading: Perl has a mess of unorganized global functions. Most typing mismatches, instead of generating error, return some nonsense value, so void+123 or @x+%y==0 would give you untraceable bug. Finally, Perl has no booleans, so there is no way to discern 0 from false; moreover "" and "0" are false too, but "00" isn't, despite "0"=="00". For some reason void acts as true, but referencing undefined variable returns false. Integers are represented as floating point values, so 99999999999999999999==100000000000000000000.
- Perl is hard to learn, due to non-orthogonality by design: Perl's goal of bundling basic Unix utilities into one language was achieved in haste, ending up producing numerous sublanguages loosely glued together, making Perl look like a deficient Unix clone, where all commands are builtins. Perl implements a lot of standard library on syntax level, making language enormous in size: for example, instead of being a library function, regular expressions are implemented as syntactic construct, allowed at unexpected places, like in "print if /regex/", which also gives no clue what it prints or takes as input. Or take "pos($x) = pos($x)", which does bizarre magic at resetting regex. Other example is ".." operator: "print 1..3" produces a sequence, but "print if 1..3" interpret 1..3 as a range of input lines. Then Perl has a lot of duplication: for example, Perl has `not` operator, but for some reason also includes `!` and `unless`, while keyword `if` is overloaded as infix operator, and don't forger about cryptic if?then:else operator. Having a myriad of these special cases, Perl rejects logic and appeals to humanities and theology students, who love learning random facts by rote memorization, and for whom $_ and <> are perfectly clear, even intuitive. The standard Perl documentation contains over 70,000 lines, add to that all the documentation on CPAN modules, and you face a pretty substantial base of prose just to begin with Perl. "Perl users were unable to write programs more accurately than those using a language designed by chance." -- http://ecs.victoria.ac.nz/twiki/pub/Events/PLATEAU/Program/plateau2011-stefik.pdf
- Perl is inefficient: broken scoping impedes efficient compilation and bad type system hinders any optimization, making Perl agonizingly slow. Aggravating Perl's condition are naive reference counting garbage collector and unparsable syntax, requiring solving halting problem just to parse a Perl source file.
- Perl code is unmaintainable, "clever", unreadable and obfuscated: Perl encourages packing unrelated concepts into a messy one-liner, impeding understanding and modification; TIMTOWTDI-redundancy guarantees style discrepancies, misunderstanding and pointless flame-wars among developers, which is aggravated by the size of the language. Finally, Perl isn't modular: it is common to see Perl script 6000 lines long.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-13 23:47

>>3
Yeah well that's just like, your opinion, man.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 0:04

>>4

99999999999999999999==100000000000000000000

and that is a fact. not opinion.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 0:13

>>5
0 == false, everything else is true. Perl treats variable as a double precision floating point. As a scripting language I don't see a problem with how it works. Would you not resort to C, C++, Lisp, or something else for a large task anyway?

I hear Perl 6 is not coming along very easily. I suppose that speaks some sort of volume on how good a language Perl is.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 0:14

In >>6, I meant to say 'Perl treats every variable as a...'

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 0:31

>>6

I hear Perl 6 is not coming along very easily.
perl6 is stillborn

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 0:37

You just wait and see, Perl 6 will come out and that kike faced butterfly will have it's day!

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 0:41

Perl 6 was a research language made by people who didn't know that there's such a thing as a research language.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 0:47

>>9
On a scale from 0 (Dolph Lundgren) to 10 (Rabbi Efrem Goldberg) how JEWish is PERL?

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 0:51

>>11

Perl 6 is as Jewish as YHWH, because no goy can understand it's purpose.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 0:53

This concerns me. Does Perl truly have a dismal future? If so I'll make a long term transition to something more promising. I'm sure even if Perl 6 fails more decimal points can be added to Perl 5 into infinity.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 0:57

>>13

Future belongs to JavaScript.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 0:59

>>14
Of course!

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 1:30

>>3
$ perl6
> 99999999999999999999==100000000000000000000
False
Status: Disproven

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 1:53

>>13
I'm sure even if Perl 6 fails more decimal points can be added to Perl 5 into infinity.

This has already happened. Perl 5 is healthy and doing fine, and has even gained some of the experimental Perl 6 features that had people interested in the first place. Compare it to PHP or Python and you'll see there's nothing to fear.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 2:01

>>16
This talk is about why Perl 5 sucks
The thread the original rant is from had someone who couldn't read that, too. Amusing.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 2:32

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 2:39

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 2:40

>>20

"Firefox can't find the server at ivasiwlrjq5dxk6b.onion."

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 2:45

>>21
ivasiwlrjq5dxk6b.onion is optimized for Internet Explorer 8.

Name: Dolph Lundgren 2014-07-14 2:46

Name: Dolph Lundgren 2014-07-14 2:48

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 2:58

Dolph Lundgren is some kind of straw man actor, playing bad aryan guy uusually beaten by good Jewish guy. Rocky 4, where Dolph plays Russian, is especially funny, because Russians ain't Aryan and don't have white hair, but Jews for some reason really wanted to invoke "blonde = evil" axiom. Interesting is that none of high-ranking Nazis had blonde hair. I.e. Goebbels looked more like a fragile emo Jew, than a Nordic viking hero.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 3:09

http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/10/29/richard-dawkins-perplexed-by-high-number-of-jewish-nobel-prize-winners/

The usually self-assured biologist, author and atheist Richard Dawkins expressed his bewilderment at the disproportionate amount of Nobel prizes won by Jews in a recent interview with the New Republic, saying he is “intrigued by” the “phenomenally high” number of Jewish laureates.

According to the Jewish Virtual Library, since the Nobel was first awarded in 1901 approximately 193 of the 855 honorees have been Jewish (22%). Jews make up less than 0.2% of the global population.

This year 6 of 12 laureates were Jewish. The 13th laureate, for the Nobel Peace Prize, was awarded to an organization and not an individual.


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/nobels.html

http://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&q=most+nobel+prize+winners+jewish&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 3:12

Only character and intelligence qualify as standards for superiority. And Jews are full of character and intelligence. The majority of comedians and tricksters are Jewish (clever, intelligent) and the majority of intelligent people of all stripes are Jewish.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 3:23

>>25
Russians ain't Aryan and don't have white hair

I'm pretty sure old russians have white hair

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 3:26

>>26

1. If you control the committee, you can award yourself. See Nikita Khrushchev, who awarded himself with three highest state awards, in effect trivializing them. That is: nobody believes anymore in Nobel prize as a recognition of anything beyond political affiliations.
2. Jews usually take leading positions, which allows easy appropriating the work of other lab personal.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 3:29

>>28

Russians exist as a mix from Finno-Ugric people, Asian tribes, Tatars and Slavs, of which only Tatars and Slavs had blonde hair.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 6:10

>>26

Mr Marcus Storch, MD h.c., a member of the Nobel Foundation’s Board of Directors since May 1, 1996 and Chairman since 2005 is the son of Hillel Storch who was the chairman of the Swedish branch of the World Jewish Congress. The mission of the World Jewish Congress is to foster the unity and represent the interests of the Jewish people, and to ensure the continuity and development of its religious, spiritual, cultural, and social heritage.
No doubt, the Nobel Foundation is representing the interests of the Jewish people, and it is doing it very well.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 14:35

>>30
Tatars
blonde hair
How about no. Also it's true: a noticeable percentage of Russians are blonde.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 14:59

Einstein worked in a patent bureau and appropriated other scientists' work. His "theory of relativity" does not contain any ideas that weren't already developed by Planck, Lorentz and Poincare. His low intelligence is proven by the fact that Einstein:
1) was kicked out of school for low grades
2) could never grasp quantum mechanics without being able to present any counter-arguments
3) believed in imaginary friends in the sky.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 18:06

>>33
Let's see you grasping Einstein's field equations, then perhaps talk about Einsten's intelligence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 18:25

>>33
Atheists are stupid. It's a proven fact.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 19:18

>>35
Stop posting.

Name: >>36 2014-07-14 19:41

I should kill myself.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 19:43

>>2
You're fucking retarded. Why are you stupid niggers so ignorant of the humanities and theology? Can't handle anything that isn't in third grade english and isn't muh blue light ebook? stupid nihilists kill yourselves latin is too hard for you

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 19:44

Should of made that e``book''. Just like how ``smart''phones aren't so smart nor are the users smart.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-14 19:44

>>35,37
Please, just stop.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List