Perl is like being molested by your uncle. There's something off about him, but everyone regards him very highly, so you trust him, and then on a family camping trip out at Montauk Point he takes advantage of you. Years later, you accept and acknowledge what happened, but you still refuse to believe that he's scarred you, because that would put him in control, not you, and the last thing you want is a molester in control of your life -- but your denial doesn't make it the truth. You want to believe that deep down inside, Perl is a good person, and you see that Perl has very redeeming qualities, but you sit down to try and program Perl and all you can think of is that camel's hard, throbbing cock.
>>52 Javascript OO is utter crap.
JS OO is just prototype based, hence the features you want are unimplemented. You can implement them and get classes and all. The problem with this kind of thing is that EVERYBODY can implement them, so everybody gets a different JavaScript base to work on. Consequently, you can't read or mix everybody's code, and you have to pick on some framework or build your own before you can start doing anything with it.
Perl OO is very flexible and works well.
Can't be compared to Python's.
>>63
You've obviously never used OO Perl. It is a bolted on hack that works better is more flexible than python ever can be. There are many different ways to actually implement the objects in perl and you can easily handle Aspects if you need to.
Even better you can use actual information hiding techniques via closures to make even faster safer object implementations. Too bad python just says MAKE YOUR ATTRIBUTES HAVE MORE UNDERSCORES.
Why even use python for OO when Ruby is so much richer and better designed and perl is so much more flexible and useful.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-27 9:17
>>64
Insert epic pub(l)ic vs. private members flamewar where I argue that you don't need to document private stuff and you don't use it, and you argue that people will still use it, then I say but we have property(), then you say you still like Perl, then I say =/(()=&/=%/&)=($&()/= is fucking ugly, then you say no it's not /()$/=()/=()/) lolol and you still have Ruby, then I say Ruby is still ugly, while Python looks pristine crystal clear (even if written __pristine__ __crystal__ __clear__), then you say lol noob get a job, then I say I got a job, go back to /b stupid /b/tard, and you say..... etc.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-27 10:09
Ruby FTW faggots.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-27 12:13
>>64
yeah... public variables aren't really a problem if you know how to program. You shouldn't ever be *trying* to access those variables, hence if you rename any private variables to have a single underscore in front you know when you should access them.
Python just lets you write programs far easier and faar more readable than most other languages.
Comparing its OO to ruby is a bit strange imo. ruby is 'zomg oo ftw'. Python can use it if you want. If you want to build a giant prototype app or ruby on rails shit, then yes, you should use ruby instead (I program both), but for smaller programs I've pretty much given up on perl nowadays, python is just easier.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-27 12:22
but for smaller programs I've pretty much given up on perl nowadays, python is just easier.
O rly? I hate Python because it has the infinitely retarded thing where you can import specific functions from ``modules''. Stupid Perl legacy.
In Ruby, you simply include files.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-27 20:19
>>69 In Ruby, you simply include files.
I don't know how they are implemented in Ruby, but I know them from PHP, and includes can turn into an include hell as well, but I'll agree that modularization has, at least, not an obvious solution and it could be rethougt.
Nevertheless, Python still has a cleaner, nicer syntax than Ruby, more general purpose libraries, and a larger userbase, and it's a better multiparadigm language where you can work procedurally, functionally or object-oriented, without making either your religion (which is bad because you should use the right tool for every job).
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-27 20:45
Python still has a cleaner, nicer syntax than Ruby
like hell
multiparadigm language where you can work procedurally, functionally or object-oriented
Unfortunately while Python supports all of these, it supports them all badly.
>>68
Actually I consider this one of the few Good Things about Python. It allows you to avoid cluttering the namespace.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-27 20:49
>>69
| Python still has a cleaner, nicer syntax than Ruby
>>71 I don't care, I write my own code
Lol, will you ever finish anything longer than 10 kloc? Do something real for a change.
lol buzzword
What buzzword? I don't require it. I can say you can program in several different styles, or you can do all procedural, OO and functional programming in Python.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-27 21:31
You can do the same in Ruby. What's your point?
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-27 23:06
Ruby doesn't force the OO upon you like Python does.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-28 4:47
>>72
| Lol, will you ever finish anything longer than 10 kloc?
Do you mean at work or at home? I don't count all the C++ trash I spit at work, I prefer the adventure game I'm writing right now, but no one count lines of code anymore, it's stupid and doesn't mean anything.
| What buzzword?
Multi-paradigm is a buzzword. Python is "bad OOP" without all the features of other OOP languages. And no, Python is not a functional language, it lacks macros for example (and no, lambda is not a macro definition, it's just an anonymous function).
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-28 5:28
Python's lambda is neutered.
Also, lexical scoping and shadowed variables are retarded. If you've ever mucked with Python's closures, you know what I'm talking about.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-28 7:30
>>70 Actually I consider this one of the few Good Things about Python. It allows you to avoid cluttering the namespace.
What's the point of that? If you need something from the Ruby standard library, and you include it, while at the same time creating a class that conflicts with it, do you not have yourself to blame?
The larger includes use namespaces as well.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-28 8:29
>>75
Macros have nothing to do with FP. They're just the thing Lisp has and nothing else, because other languages are cluttered with syntax and shit.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-28 8:37
cluttered with syntax and shit.
For a machine, sure. For a human... shit, Lots of Irritating Superfluous Parentheses is true. That language is like Perl: write only.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-28 10:25
>>79
"write only" if you don't have any talent in coding, but then you would find another job which I advise you to do.