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

So, order these as you like them

Name: Anonymous 2006-05-23 12:09

The main four scripting languages are, in alphabetical order (case-insensitive you Unix tards lol):

Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby

Now we all know they have different strengths/uses/downbacks/shitsuxfag/etc. In this thread you post which of these do you know, and out of these you know, in what order do you like them, regardless of their uses (i.e. this doesn't mean you have to put the most powerful one first if you don't like it that much for some reason).

-----

Here are mine: Python > PHP > Perl

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-03 14:05

>>37
Yes. It is. I shall demonstrate:

How to use Ruby:
1. Learn (some) Ruby.
2. (Optional) write a simple program that runs on a webserver.
3. (Mandatory) Start a blog about it.
4. (Optional) write up to 3 (three) blog entries.

How to use Lua:
1. Embed it in whatever you're doing in C, C++, or whatever language you're "really" using, to script anything and everything.
2. (Optional) If you have a blog: Write a footnote about it in whichever blog entry that mentions the project.
3. (Mandatory) Never mention it again unless asked.

Just about anything bigger than a breadbox either has FIOC or Lua embedded. How do you tell if something uses Lua? NO EXCEPTIONS! Easy: it's not boasting about yet another use of FIOC.

Just about nothing that does anything nontrivial has anything to do with Ruby.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-03 14:58

While I don't agree that these are "main" "scripting" languages(what exactly is a "main" language and what makes a language a scripting language - the term is stupid), here's my ranking of them: 1.Ruby 1.Python 2.Perl 3.PHP. (Can't decide if I like [b]SLOW AS FUCK[/o] or [b]FIOC[/o] more. However, neither is a favorite language of mine, but I wouldn't mind coding in Ruby or Python. I use Lisp and C for almost everything I do, with a few exceptions.)

Name: >>42 2010-03-03 15:00

Oh damn, that's what I get for writing that BBCODE by hand.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-03 15:29

>>42
Can't decide if I like [b]SLOW AS FUCK[/o] or [b]FIOC[/o] more.
You don't have to decide, FIOC excels at both.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-03 17:14

Python > Lua && Lua > $rest;

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-03 17:19

>>45
Comparison returned false value.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-03 17:32

>quote
>>[quote]quote[/quote]

summary, php is for fags

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-03 17:51

>>47
Go back to /prog/.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-04 5:32

Oh, TCL, why did you have to die?

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-04 6:34

Perl > crap

Name: Richard Stallman 2010-03-04 6:54

>>49
[Please redistribute wherever appropriate.]

Why you should not use Tcl
Richard Stallman, GNU Project

As interest builds in extensible application programs and tools, and
some programmers are tempted to use Tcl, we should not forget the
lessons learned from the first widely used extensible text
editor--Emacs.

The principal lesson of Emacs is that a language for extensions should
not be a mere "extension language". It should be a real programming
language, designed for writing and maintaining substantial programs.
Because people will want to do that!

Extensions are often large, complex programs in their own right, and
the people who write them deserve the same facilities that other
programmers rely on.

The first Emacs used a string-processing language, TECO, which was
inadequate. We made it serve, but it kept getting in our way. It
made maintenance harder, and it made extensions harder to write.
Later Emacs implementations have used more powerful languages because
implementors learned from the problems of the first one.

Another lesson from Emacs is that the way to make sure an extension
facility is really flexible is to use it to write a large portion of
the ordinary released system. If you try to do that with Tcl, you
will encounter its limitations.

Tcl was not designed to be a serious programming language. It was
designed to be a "scripting language", on the assumption that a
"scripting language" need not try to be a real programming language.
So Tcl doesn't have the capabilities of one. It lacks arrays; it
lacks structures from which you can make linked lists. It fakes
having numbers, which works, but has to be slow. Tcl is ok for
writing small programs, but when you push it beyond that, it becomes
insufficient.

Tcl has a peculiar syntax that appeals to hackers because of its
simplicity. But Tcl syntax seems strange to most users. If Tcl does
become the "standard scripting language", users will curse it for
years--the way people curse Fortran, MSDOS, Unix shell syntax, and
other de facto standards they feel stuck with.

For these reasons, the GNU project is not going to use Tcl in GNU
software. Instead we want to provide two languages, similar in
semantics but with different syntaxes. One will be Lisp-like, and one
will have a more traditional algebraic syntax. Both will provide
useful data types such as structures and arrays. The former will
provide a simple syntax that hackers like; the latter will offer
non-hackers a syntax that they are more comfortable with.

Some people plan to use Tcl because they want to use Tk. Thankfully,
it is possible to use Tk without Tcl. A Scheme interpreter called STk
is already available. Please, if you want to use Tk, use it with STk,
not with Tcl. One place to get STk is from
ftp.cs.indiana.edu:pub/scheme-repository/imp/STk-2.1.tar.Z

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-04 11:19

Perl, Ruby > PHP, Python

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-04 18:03

>>49
Tcl died and left us a few excellent replacements in its wake. While this much is good, the overall situation is that there are many more bad replacements.

Larry Wall has stated that dislike for a language is a bad thing, however he wasn't taking into account the fact that people actually use certain language implementations to the detriment of the application. This is doubly so for embedded scripting languages.

totally lackluster; didn't reevaluate -- We'd be better off if Tcl was still in use.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-04 18:48

Moon > FIOC > Cryptic > Slow as Fuck > $hit

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-04 19:04

I use PHP for what it is for, writing HTML.

It is good at what it does, and I will not apologize to you faggots.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-04 19:18

>>54
Why do you have Python on there 4 times?

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-04 19:25

PHP > Ruby > Python > Perl

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-04 19:55

>>56
Clerver.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-04 20:48

Tharnks.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-04 21:15

If PHP is shit
and Ruby is hipster/japshit
and Python is FIOC/slow/Fischer Price My First Programming Language
and Perl is horribly designed
then what am I supposed to use for (1) scripts and (2) web development?

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-04 21:24

>>60
1. (ba)sh, lua, perl.
2. perl, whatever dot net, java.

You can use Python and Ruby if you really want to. You do not have permission to use PHP under any circumstances. Sorry.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-05 10:03

>>56
As far as I know, Python don't have any $hit variable preceded with "$". Neither is it cryptic. And for what it's worth, it has nothing to do with Lua (Moon is Lua in english, y'know).

That leaves FIOC and Slow as fuck. Python is not as slow as Ruby, and most of the times the slowness is forgivable. And after all, performance-critical things are the last thing you'll think of writing in a interpreted language.


>>61
O hai, use Java in your whatever you want and write 99% of useless shit.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-05 11:33

>>61
do not use dot net
microsoft botnet crap

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-05 12:00

>>63
Proof?

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-05 12:51

>>64
The title of the software contains the word Microsoft in it; that's all the proof you need. It's 100% certain it's dodgy shite.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-05 17:00

>>65
Oh, now you're just being picky.

Microsoft gave us a lot of good things like Access and Vista.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-05 17:03

>>66
Vista

( ≖‿≖)

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-07 20:51

“There are only two kinds of programming languages: those people always bitch about and those nobody uses.”
(Bjarne Stroustrup)

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-07 21:05

Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby

Python > PHP > Perl > Ruby

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-07 21:12

Brainfuck > PHP

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-07 22:18

I don't really like any of these. If using one was necessary, I'd choose Perl.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-08 5:13

>>68
The implication here is not that we should ignore good languages, but that programmers are masochists.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-08 13:58

>>72
The implication here is that like spoken languages there are living and dead languages.

Examples: latin, old greek, archaic chinese and elizabethean english are all dead languages.

For much the same reasons that Haskell and the Lisp familiy of languages are also dead.
 
- People only learn them as academic curiosities.
- There are far more relevant living languages that fulfill the same need. Even if people bitch about them; that's just human nature.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-08 14:00

>>72
Really? The only implication I discovered was that Bjarne has sour grapes. It's kind of meta, but so is C-plixplax.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-08 16:47

>>73
Lisp familiy of languages are also dead.
It's no more dead than usual

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-08 23:58

>>75
Have you read your necro/prog/icon today?

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-09 10:39

>>73
I couldn't care less what you consider dead.
Haskell is actively developed and there's new code and libraries written each day. That isn't dead by my understand, that's a growing language.
As for Lisp: it's a very mature family of languages, it has some dialects which are actively developed (Clojure and some Schemes for example), which means the language changes, so those are as alive as Haskell is. Common Lisp is mostly set in stone, but that doesn't stop me and other people from writing in it:
1) There's multiple actively maintained implementations. I see  new updates/releases each month.
2) The language is solid, which makes it portable across implementations.
3) The language is very flexible making it extensible and malleable to be whatever you want. A truly programmable programming language.
4) Implementations provide extensions (MOP, FFI, networking, gray/simple streams, ...) which extend CL much beyond the standard, which makes it very much alive. Some extensions are de-facto portable across implementations.
5) You can't get some features without being a Lisp, or having a homoiconic syntax. This is why Lisp will always exist, as it's just a dicovery, not an invention.
As long as people keep maintaining implementations and libraries, the languages are very usable and alive for me, and I'll keep on using them, and so will other people. I couldn't give a damn that it's not used in popular software industry as long as the language serves my needs.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-07 6:41

Hi, I can spam /prog/ too, you faggot.

Also, smoke weed everyday.

Name: ​​​​​​​​​​ 2010-09-09 11:40

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-27 22:04


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