(stephen) Re: Experimenting with other programming languages...

[stephen]

Ruby is a neat language. I'd advise any Monks who had the time and inclination to buy the books and learn it. I haven't used it on any professional projects yet, but I do like what I've seen. Its proponents do prefer it to Perl. That's only to be expected-- after all, it was designed as an "improved Perl", among other things. Their intentions were good, and if there's some anti-Perl snobbery going on there, so be it. The language design of Ruby shows at least that the designers knew Perl, once upon a time.

My response to all language warfare remains that any reasonable language will be transparent within a month of use, at most. (How many of us use QWERTY keyboards?) Also, any programming language powerful enough to be useful will also be flexible enough to allow obfuscated code. After a certain level, there are no good or bad programming languages, just good or bad programming habits. Does driving a BMW make someone a naturally better driver? If there were a perfect programming language out there, we'd probably use it instead of English. (Or whatever else your native language may be.)

For me, the important aspects of a language have more to do with its support environment. Does Ruby have a PerlMonks? How advanced is its version of CPAN? My use of Perl has little to do with the language itself, and much more to do with facilities like CPAN and Perlmonks.

So, to answer your question directly: I'm not worried about it. We all SHOULD learn as many different languages as we have time and inclination. In the end, we'll use whatever language fits a given problem, and for the forseeable future that language will frequently be Perl.

stephen