Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
laziness, impatience, and hubris
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: Is Programming Perl still relevant as a reference book?

by w-ber (Hermit)
on Mar 02, 2007 at 19:19 UTC ( #602939=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Is Programming Perl still relevant as a reference book?
in thread Is Programming Perl still relevant as a reference book?

I can attest that K&R is still relevant and it is an excellent book; I have a hardcopy. However, the case is different: C is standardized, Perl is not. The C language, save unofficial vendor extensions, remained the same for a good ten years or so (from C89 to C99). No new keywords, same semantics. Even the standard library stayed the same. Also, most common C compilers still fail to support the full C99 standard, which means most C code is still C89. Reading perl58\d?delta, as linked by ysth, indicates that Perl has indeed changed in seven years.

--
print "Just Another Perl Adept\n";

  • Comment on Re^2: Is Programming Perl still relevant as a reference book?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Is Programming Perl still relevant as a reference book?
by DrHyde (Prior) on Mar 05, 2007 at 10:03 UTC
    Yes, perl has changed. Nigh-on all those changes have been *additions*, not deletions or changes in old functionality. Therefore the Camel book is still relevant.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://602939]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others wandering the Monastery: (5)
As of 2016-06-25 11:52 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    My preferred method of making French fries (chips) is in a ...











    Results (325 votes). Check out past polls.