|No such thing as a small change|
PBP is quite remarkable, but in my opinion in some way it contradicts perl unwritten TIMTOWDI-law.
As system administrator i'm in the confortable postion to use perl for my own, will say i have'nt regards for other programmers which have to understand my codings. Nevertheless it's in my own interest to write code which is qw/consise structured clear modular re-usable/ and neat.
What i loves about perl mostly is it's undogmatic style. With perl i can "call a spade a spade" . I can write quickest and dirtiest one-liners and due to bash's history they can be used again and again.
On the other hand i can build up big applications which use selfwritten or readymade modules. For better uptaking (?, ger: Begreifen) i like(d) to use "instruments" perl "has on bord" as far as usable. In young history i often prefer CPAN-modules, they are better than mine anyway and my laziness has grown.
I read PBP partially and found it though a little bit dogmatic mainly interesting, especially the chapter "regular expressions". But when i came to the discourse about "inside-out" objects my interest faded because it acted as too "academically" to me. (Presumably i'm only to dumb for that.)
Nevertheless my private o'reilly-zoo has meanwhile twelve exemplars. The book which brought the most benefit to me is, after the "Camel-Book", "Advanced Perl Programming" from Sriram Srinivasan.
Is simplicity best or simply the easiest Martin L. Gore