From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

In article <uvbe3m$2cun7$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
...

I've programmed in Perl but I'm no Perl-programmer notwithstanding.

That's like saying "Yeah, I've had sex with men, but that don't make gay..."
--
I don't do things wrong.
I do things right.

I'm a legitimate person.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

In article <uvbfii$3mom0$1@news.xmission.com>,
Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:

In article <uvbe3m$2cun7$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
...

I've programmed in Perl but I'm no Perl-programmer notwithstanding.

That's like saying "Yeah, I've had sex with men, but that don't make gay..."

That's like saying "Yeah, I've had sex with men, but that don't make me gay..."

(Left out a critical word. Damn cheap keyboard...)

--
I don't do things wrong.
I do things right.

I'm a legitimate person.

--
Adderall, pseudoephed, teleprompter
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

On 2024-04-12, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:

In article <uvbe3m$2cun7$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
...

I've programmed in Perl but I'm no Perl-programmer notwithstanding.

That's like saying "Yeah, I've had sex with men, but that don't make gay..."

I've programmed so little in Perl in such distant nineties, that
it's analogous to only having seen the shower scene in /Midnight Express/.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

In comp.unix.shell Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:

I've programmed in Perl but I'm no Perl-programmer notwithstanding.
Some more or less obvious reasons I see...
Abstraction of diverse Unix utilities' interfaces.
(...)
Supporting data structures (beyond primitive arrays).
Less quirks than Shell. (I'm saying that as an experienced Shell programmer.)

I find perl much more quirky. Among many other things, it lacks an straightforward support of nested data structures (you neeed to use
something called references), as it flattens nested arrays automatically.
That was an erroneous early design decission.

$ clisp <<< "(print '(1 2 3 (4 5)))"
...
(1 2 3 (4 5))

$ python3 <<< "print((1,2,3,(4,5)))"
(1, 2, 3, (4, 5))

$ perl -e "use Data::Dumper; @a=(1,2,3,(4,5)); print Dumper(\@a)"
$VAR1 = [
1,
2,
3,
4,
5
];

That being said, no other language comes close in conciseness when it
comes to text processing and interacting with the OS (filesystem, pipes, etc). Any other language is too verbose for those tasks.

https://wiki.c2.com/?WhyLovePerl
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 20:41:28 +0000, Javier wrote:

I find perl much more quirky. Among many other things, it lacks an straightforward support of nested data structures (you neeed to use
something called references), as it flattens nested arrays
automatically. That was an erroneous early design decission.

Is *that* where PHP got that stupid idea from? Only its attempt to patch
them up with “references” just created a new mess.

That being said, no other language comes close in conciseness when
it comes to text processing and interacting with the OS (filesystem,
pipes, etc). Any other language is too verbose for those tasks.

Other languages can offer more expressive facilities, though. This can
make the code easier to follow.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

On 12.04.2024 16:15, Kenny McCormack wrote:

In article <uvbfii$3mom0$1@news.xmission.com>,
Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:

In article <uvbe3m$2cun7$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
...

I've programmed in Perl but I'm no Perl-programmer notwithstanding.

That's like saying "Yeah, I've had sex with men, but that don't make gay..."

That's like saying "Yeah, I've had sex with men, but that don't make me gay..."

LOL, yeah. - But the point is that my valuation what constitutes a
"programmer" needs quite a bit more expertise than I have. (YMMV.)

All that I've done in Perl programming was to infer some knowledge
from other languages or libraries and to expand existing programs
to my needs. And it was not even a month I spent for coding Perl.
I also do know a bit Perl concepts from literature, but that's it.

If that experience is what already constitutes a programmer then I
understand why so much existing software is so bad. :-)

(But, yeah, _technically_ I became have become a Perl programmer.
Just don't count on any deep experience. And I'll also reject any
Perl job offers. ;-)

Janis

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

Javier wrote:

That being said, no other language comes close in conciseness when it
comes to text processing and interacting with the OS (filesystem, pipes, etc).
Any other language is too verbose for those tasks.

Perhaps no other language, but i could imagine e.g. a library for a
language getting there.
--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to Hawk│/blu.mɛin.dʰak/│he/him/his/himself/Mr. blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
As always.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 12:43:56 -0000 (UTC), Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:

.. i could imagine e.g. a library for a language getting there.

Especially a language that is particularly versatile and adaptable to
defining DSLs.

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 22:12:23 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 12:43:56 -0000 (UTC), Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:

.. i could imagine e.g. a library for a language getting there.

Especially a language that is particularly versatile and adaptable to defining DSLs.

*waits for a Forth-head to chime in*

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:29:51 -0700, John Ames wrote:

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 22:12:23 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

Especially a language that is particularly versatile and adaptable to
defining DSLs.

*waits for a Forth-head to chime in*

Forth? Not a chance. That’s only fit for a museum. Whatever interesting features it might have had were carried over to PostScript, which took
things to the next level.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

On 16/04/2024 00:58, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:29:51 -0700, John Ames wrote:

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 22:12:23 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

Especially a language that is particularly versatile and adaptable to
defining DSLs.

*waits for a Forth-head to chime in*

What about Scala? I don't the language myself, but I believe it is
popular as a basis for DSL's.

Forth? Not a chance. That’s only fit for a museum. Whatever interesting features it might have had were carried over to PostScript, which took
things to the next level.

Forth is alive and well, albeit not very common. It is used in embedded systems - it is almost certainly the smallest language and run-time
system where you can have a extendable high-level language, and runs
directly on even very small microcontrollers. Within the same language,
you can glide between higher level words and Forth-style assembly for low-level code. And you can pretty much freely choose where you draw
the line between pre-compiled code for maximal efficiency and
interpreted code for maximal convenience and development speed. I've
even seen a system with a soft processor (i.e., one made in a hardware
design language for use in FPGA's or gate array ASICs) written in Forth,
where you can move the boundaries between the parts that are implemented
in hardware and the parts in software.

Forth is also the basis for the assembly and code for most stack-based processors, which are used whenever the smallest die area is needed. In particular, 4-bit microcontroller programming is dominated by Forth.
You don't normally see such chips, because they are hidden inside
devices and these days only found within other chips (the last
general-purpose easily available 4-bit microcontroller line was
discontinued about a decade ago).

New Forth-native hardware has been made in recent times, such as the GreenArray chips.

The latest Forth standard is from 2012, I believe.

Forth is certainly old, and certainly a very unusual language that is
hard for outsiders to comprehend, and certainly not a particularly
popular language, but it is equally certainly still used.

(I am not a "Forth-head", and know only a little of the language, but
happen to have learned a bit from real Forth-heads.)



--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:14:38 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

Forth is also the basis for the assembly and code for most stack-based >processors, which are used whenever the smallest die area is needed. In >particular, 4-bit microcontroller programming is dominated by Forth.
You don't normally see such chips, because they are hidden inside
devices and these days only found within other chips (the last >general-purpose easily available 4-bit microcontroller line was
discontinued about a decade ago).

Old style digital watches maybe?

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

On 16/04/2024 10:35, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:14:38 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

Forth is also the basis for the assembly and code for most stack-based
processors, which are used whenever the smallest die area is needed. In
particular, 4-bit microcontroller programming is dominated by Forth.
You don't normally see such chips, because they are hidden inside
devices and these days only found within other chips (the last
general-purpose easily available 4-bit microcontroller line was
discontinued about a decade ago).

Old style digital watches maybe?

Sure. And calculators, remote controls, microwave ovens, wireless keys
(cars, garages, etc.), and vast numbers of other devices. 4-bit
stack-based microcontrollers were a tiny fraction of the die size (and therefore cost) of even 8-bit devices, and used a tiny fraction of the
power (and therefore could have battery lifetimes of a decade or more).

Stand-alone 4-bit microcontrollers are a thing of the past, but you
still get them inside other chips as sequencers and handling things like startups or calibration sequences.

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114