in reply to Why so much hate?

Here's an excerpt from Bjarne Stroustrup; someone who has made a career of developing, using, teaching, and defending a language that is possibly more used, and more hated than Perl, while being at least as useful in its own domains. (stroustrup.com):

"C++ sucks"

One could substitute Perl for C++ in every one of those bullet points, and it would be equally applicable. COBOL was useful in its era, in its domain as a business language, though it probably was applied to problems that were too big for the facilities it provided for large-scale applications. Poorly written <<any language, including Perl>> also doesn't scale well for large-scale applications.

Perl, unlike COBOL, does scale reasonably well. And like C++, it's intimidating at first, and the deeper one digs, the more one finds to be intimidated about. But also like C++, (probably even more-so) with Perl a "baby subset" of the language can be useful to newcomers, and it's possible to become productive without mastering all the dark corners.

If you're looking for some "what's next" books: Modern Perl (chromatic), and Higher Order Perl (Mark Jason Dominus) might be good reads. Also, even though it's a few years older than the current state-of-the-art, Mastering Regular Expressions, 3rd Edition. Modern Perl and Higher Order Perl are each available legally for free.

Update: Instead of focusing on what others (possibly who haven't really given it a chance) say, focus on those things people who use Perl enjoy about the language; its expressive, powerful syntax; its DWIMery; and probably most of all, the CPAN. Perl is, after all, the syntax one must use as the price of admission to all the code available on CPAN.


Dave

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Why so much hate?
by Grimy (Pilgrim) on Aug 13, 2013 at 08:16 UTC
    There are only two kinds of programming languages: those people always bitch about and those nobody uses.

    Perl6 somehow managed to be in both categories.

Re^2: Why so much hate?
by Anonymous Monk on Aug 09, 2013 at 10:57 UTC
    Re COBOL: back in the day, I worked with some really huge COBOL applications, probably bigger than you've ever seen. Whatever else you might say about it, you can't say it didn't scale. Matter of fact, any language that provides includes and separate compilation / modules scales just fine. The rest is sugar.

      The main limitation to scale for COBOL (in its original incarnations rather than the bastardized form that the likes of MicroFocus sell), was the single dataspace.

      Whilst it can be managed, it requires great oversight and careful management;both of which are anathemas to program evolution and change; and almost totally preclude modern development (RAD) techniques.


      With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.