Re: The Great Tao of Perl

[frag]

Of course Perl has Tao -- programming has Tao, and Perl is programming.

All the same, I worry about this kind of thinking -- I mean, programming holy wars over languages are bad enough without making them literal holy wars... I can see it now:

"Master, does a python have Buddha nature?"

-- Frag.

Update: From Section 1.2:

"Each language has its purpose, however humble. Each language expresses the Yin and Yang of software. Each language has its place within the Tao.

But do not program in COBOL if you can avoid it."

[vilk]

Taoism, in the strict definition of the Tao Te Ching and early practice, and to some degree modern practice, is less religious and more philosophical. The yin and yang (which really should be called the T'ai Chi) symbols, and the theory of Tao as a definable, spiritual presence in the universe, are accredited to the more religious version of Taoism that flourished after the 215 CE founding of the school of Tianshe.

Being philosophical and not excluding any religions, Taoism is easily accepted by almost all major religions. I know several Christians that easily follow both Christ and the teachings of Lao Tzu. There need not be any holy wars over the Tao of Perl, the saintliness of Java, the Buddha nature of Python, or the karma of C. They can all have Tao. :-)

Vilk

Update: Corrected some grammatical errors.

[mugwumpjism]

Sure, but if it is proper Taoism then there is no war. The Tao merely states his opinion as he sees it, and lets others choose their own path.

Of course Perl could have chosen to be like Java and sent out swarms of missionaries who tout the wonders of the speed of development in the language as if it were truth from on high.

I guess that's why Taoism was chosen here and not, say, mormonism or jehovah's witnesses.

[John M. Dlugosz]

I guess that's why Taoism was chosen here and not, say, mormonism or jehovah's witnesses.

Beautiful! So Perl does have Budda Nature, on a meta-level. After all, TIMTOWTDI as a motto stresses the open and tolerant nature, right?

— John