The stupid question is the question not asked | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Hmm, well I read the essay. I would not consider that faint praise. It seems to me he is giving it a lot just by suggesting that it might be around in a hundred years.
I think people who read this essay should keep one idea in mind. You cannot have the best method of doing something on the first try every time. Another words, a bunch of failures is a significant sign of a few great achievements. Look at other languages and tell me what great features they've introduced. How about their failures. You should compare all the languages on their failures and achievements before assuming the worst of what he says. To me a language that does nothing new is a failure. Even a language that only has failures is not a complete failure, you at least get somewhere by finding out what doesn't work. Although, I find it interesting that he has left out a couple of things that have affected programmers the most in the last 20 years.
Finally, I have a genuine question to ask. I don't memorize many popular people...hack or otherwise. Exactly how much perl does Paul Graham know? smiles In reply to Re: "There are some stunningly novel ideas in Perl" -- Paul Graham
by petesmiley
|
|