http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=135864


in reply to Re: Re: Perl's rank among languages
in thread Perl's rank among languages

This notion of non-idiomatic should be clearly defined, to my mind ...

True. Many moons ago I actually read a lot of the site and I seem to recall that certain tests were required to be written as close as possible to some predetermined form. If my mind isn't fibbing, that could easily require variable initialization, etc.

To continue the tete-a-tete of qouting:

Disclaimer No. 1: I'm just a beginner in many of these languages, so if you can help me improve any of the solutions, please drop me an email. Thanks.

Disclaimer No. 2: These pages are provided for novelty purposes only. Any other use voids the manufacturer's warranty. Do not mix with alchohol. Some contents may consist of recycled materials.

By the way, the word Great in the title refers to quantity, not quality

I'm doing it so that I can learn about new languages, compare them in various (possibly meaningless) ways, and most importantly, have some fun.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Perl's rank among languages
by arhuman (Vicar) on Jan 03, 2002 at 12:56 UTC
    Ok! I may have "overreacted" a litlle bit...

    You're definitly right...

    I must admit that this guy take special care to describe it works as it is rather than a "proof" of language efficiency...

    Sometimes I'm just not helping with my advocacy.

    It's just a test. The author admit it can be biased. This guy made a pretty huge (and good) work anyway (even if I'd like to see some better Perl code). Perl isn't placed the way it should to my mind. Some Perl code could be enhanced. PERIOD.

    Thanks for your patience (trying to calm me down) and your objectivity.
    (Am I becoming a Perl integrist ?)


    "Only Bad Coders Code Badly In Perl" (OBC2BIP)