Re: feature suggestion: ability to expand a set of elements of an array or characters of a scalar, given their indices

[Martin D Kealey]

On Fri, 28 Jun 2024, 18:31 Oğuz, <oguzismailuysal@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, June 28, 2024, Martin D Kealey <martin@kurahaupo.gen.nz> wrote:
>
>> modern Perl scripts
>>
>
> No such thing.
>

For the purpose of this argument, "modern" means anything written in the
last 25 years, targeting Perl 5 rather than Perl 4.

Perl is a dead language,
>

Whether you think Perl is dead, or indeed whether Perl is actually dead,
doesn't affect the validity of my point: it's a historical precedent
demonstrating that it's possible and practical to get rid of insane
behaviour from a language.

and for good reason.
>

If "good reasons" were actually sufficient to kill off a language, the
shell would have died before 2000, and PHP would have been stillborn.

Even the things that Perl did wrong could help guide us in better
directions.

-Martin

PS:

Some folk think Perl is "hard" and/or "ugly" because it doesn't look like
languages they're used to. Guess what: that applies to all languages. Try
reading MATLAB or LISP or Prolog or PostScript or YACC. Or Thai or Cherokee
or Tok Pisin.

Some folk hate Perl's sigles because they hate punctuation generally. (But
then I don't know why they would tolerate the shell, much less like it.)

Some folk hate that Perl has more than one way to do any given task. Some
folk love Perl for exactly that reason.

Mostly, younger folk have been told that "Perl is dead and for good
reason", so they avoid it without even trying to make their own assessment.
Perl has moved on a long way since 1995. By contrast the Shell has
stagnated, yet it has moved just enough not to have the benefit of
stability.

>