2 naive questions: Perl 6; Perl vs. shell scripts

Discussion in 'Perl Misc' started by J Krugman, May 28, 2004.

  1. J Krugman

    J Krugman Guest

    Two very naive, and quite unrelated just-out-of-curiosity questions.

    Where is Perl 6? Not that I'm impatient or anything (quite the
    contrary, actually; I'd like to master Perl 5 and enjoy the benefits
    of this mastery for a little while, before going back to square
    1). But I thought already months ago that its release was imminent.
    Is it because, as a free software project, there just aren't enough
    programmers available for the task? Or is the delay unrelated to
    manpower issues?


    The second question is: given how much more powerful Perl scripting
    is compared to (Unix) shell scripting, I'm surprised that there's
    so much shell scripting still out there. Is there any hope that
    Perl scripts will replace 95% of the shell scripting out there?
    Or are all these shell scripts going to be with us forever, just
    like COBOL?

    jill

    --
    To s&e^n]d me m~a}i]l r%e*m?o\v[e bit from my a|d)d:r{e:s]s.
     
    J Krugman, May 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. J Krugman

    Ben Morrow Guest

    Quoth J Krugman <>:
    >
    > Two very naive, and quite unrelated just-out-of-curiosity questions.
    >
    > Where is Perl 6? Not that I'm impatient or anything (quite the
    > contrary, actually; I'd like to master Perl 5 and enjoy the benefits
    > of this mastery for a little while, before going back to square
    > 1). But I thought already months ago that its release was imminent.
    > Is it because, as a free software project, there just aren't enough
    > programmers available for the task? Or is the delay unrelated to
    > manpower issues?


    Not yet designed :). In a recent perl.com column, Allison Randall said
    there may be a beta in two years or so, but that is still a guess.
    Before it can be written, Larry, Damian et al have to finish thrashing
    out the design of the language; I guess parrot (the runtime perl6 will
    use) will be finished before that gets done.

    You won't have to go back to square one when moving from perl5 to perl6.
    Perl6 will still be perl, and the basic concepts and syntax of the
    language will be the same. I would imagine that perl5 will continue to
    be supported for a long time after perl6 is released, as well.

    > The second question is: given how much more powerful Perl scripting
    > is compared to (Unix) shell scripting, I'm surprised that there's
    > so much shell scripting still out there. Is there any hope that
    > Perl scripts will replace 95% of the shell scripting out there?
    > Or are all these shell scripts going to be with us forever, just
    > like COBOL?


    Shell fulfills a slightly different task from perl. If a task primarily
    involves invoking external programs it is much easier to code in shell
    than in Perl. Also, shell is (under the assumption of Unix-ish) more
    portable than perl, so things like system startup scripts and program
    configuration scripts *have* to be written in shell, as there is no
    guarantee perl is available.

    Ben

    --
    All persons, living or dead, are entirely coincidental.
    Kurt Vonnegut
     
    Ben Morrow, May 28, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. J Krugman

    John Bokma Guest

    J Krugman wrote:

    > Two very naive, and quite unrelated just-out-of-curiosity questions.
    >
    > Where is Perl 6? Not that I'm impatient or anything (quite the
    > contrary, actually; I'd like to master Perl 5 and enjoy the benefits
    > of this mastery for a little while, before going back to square
    > 1). But I thought already months ago that its release was imminent.


    I thought it would take some years.

    > Is it because, as a free software project, there just aren't enough
    > programmers available for the task? Or is the delay unrelated to
    > manpower issues?


    I don't have the time to follow all, but I remember all the discussions
    eating up a lot of time, as it should. No idea what the status is.

    > The second question is: given how much more powerful Perl scripting
    > is compared to (Unix) shell scripting, I'm surprised that there's
    > so much shell scripting still out there. Is there any hope that
    > Perl scripts will replace 95% of the shell scripting out there?


    No. Some is done in Python, and maybe even PHP

    > Or are all these shell scripts going to be with us forever, just
    > like COBOL?


    Yes, especially on systems with very limited resources. For example
    running Linux of a X MB Flash memory card.

    --
    John MexIT: http://johnbokma.com/mexit/
    personal page: http://johnbokma.com/
    Experienced Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
     
    John Bokma, May 28, 2004
    #3
  4. J Krugman

    Tintin Guest

    "J Krugman" <> wrote in message
    news:c97s73$n9v$...
    >
    > The second question is: given how much more powerful Perl scripting
    > is compared to (Unix) shell scripting, I'm surprised that there's
    > so much shell scripting still out there. Is there any hope that
    > Perl scripts will replace 95% of the shell scripting out there?
    > Or are all these shell scripts going to be with us forever, just
    > like COBOL?


    Right tool for the right job. It pains me when people write a 20 line Perl
    program that is essentially:

    system("command");
    system("another command");

    When it can be done elegantly in a 4 line shell script.
     
    Tintin, May 29, 2004
    #4
  5. Re: Perl 6 (was: 2 naive questions: Perl 6; Perl vs. shell scripts)

    Saluton,

    Ben Morrow <> skribis:

    > You won't have to go back to square one when moving from perl5 to perl6.
    > Perl6 will still be perl, and the basic concepts and syntax of the
    > language will be the same. I would imagine that perl5 will continue to
    > be supported for a long time after perl6 is released, as well.


    What I have seen of perl6 scares me to hell!

    The syntax of scalars, lists and hashes is completely changed. Right now
    logically a single value is a scalar and written with $ no matter where it
    comes from. In the future this will be way confusing with @ or % to access
    some scalars. Not only is it illogical, but it also means relearning and
    keeping these things well sorted out in your mind.

    Likewise, the new possibilities of regexes sound fantastic, but why did they
    have to go and change so much in the existing regex syntax???

    If I get this right, perl6 will behave like perl5 if the package keyword
    appears. That can smooth the way somewhat, but for every source, you'll still
    have to rewrite it all once you want to use some new stuff. ARGHHH!

    I think perl5 will have a very long life!

    coralament / best Grötens / liebe Grüße / best regards / elkorajn salutojn
    Daniel Pfeiffer

    --
    lerne / learn / apprends / lär dig / ucz się Esperanto:
    http://lernu.net/
     
    Daniel Pfeiffer, Jun 13, 2004
    #5
  6. Re: Perl 6 (was: 2 naive questions: Perl 6; Perl vs. shell scripts)

    Daniel Pfeiffer <> wrote:
    > Saluton,
    >
    > Ben Morrow <> skribis:
    >
    >> You won't have to go back to square one when moving from perl5 to perl6.
    >> Perl6 will still be perl, and the basic concepts and syntax of the
    >> language will be the same. I would imagine that perl5 will continue to
    >> be supported for a long time after perl6 is released, as well.

    >
    > What I have seen of perl6 scares me to hell!



    Me too.

    But what I had seen of Perl 5 scared me. I got over it.

    What I had seen of Perl 4 scared me. I got over it.

    We will get over it. :)


    > I think perl5 will have a very long life!



    Me too.

    Even grungy old Perl 4 lived for many years, and the v4 to v5 "delta"
    was less than the v5 to v6 transition will be.


    --
    Tad McClellan SGML consulting
    Perl programming
    Fort Worth, Texas
     
    Tad McClellan, Jun 13, 2004
    #6
  7. Re: Perl 6 (was: 2 naive questions: Perl 6; Perl vs. shell scripts)

    On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:19:03 +0200, Daniel Pfeiffer
    <> wrote:

    >What I have seen of perl6 scares me to hell!


    Well, some of the things I've seen/understood of Perl6 scare me and
    some fascinate me.

    As I wrote in another post/thread, I have a *slight* impression that
    while on the one hand it will definitely still be *Perl*, OTOH it will
    be *slightly* less magic...

    >The syntax of scalars, lists and hashes is completely changed. Right now

    ^^^^^^

    Semantics, I'd say...

    >logically a single value is a scalar and written with $ no matter where it
    >comes from. In the future this will be way confusing with @ or % to access


    Yes, I agree that it will take some time to get used to the new
    behaviour(s), and this will probably be the biggest PITA. I genuinely
    wonder wether one day I'll regret Perl5 handling of these things or
    complain about how things used to be bad those days...
    ;-)

    Oh, and once (IIRC) I had heard one thing about Perl6 that I could not
    find again later on, namely that it would have had a parser
    configurable at runtime. Was that just an idea that was subsequently
    rejected?


    Michele
    --
    #!/usr/bin/perl -lp
    BEGIN{*ARGV=do{open $_,q,<,,\$/;$_}}s z^z seek DATA,11,$[;($,
    =ucfirst<DATA>)=~s x .*x q^~ZEX69l^^q,^2$;][@,xe.$, zex,s e1e
    q 1~BEER XX1^q~4761rA67thb ~eex ,s aba m,P..,,substr$&,$.,age
    __END__
     
    Michele Dondi, Jun 14, 2004
    #7
  8. J Krugman

    Ben Morrow Guest

    Re: Perl 6 (was: 2 naive questions: Perl 6; Perl vs. shell scripts)

    Quoth Michele Dondi <>:
    >
    > Oh, and once (IIRC) I had heard one thing about Perl6 that I could not
    > find again later on, namely that it would have had a parser
    > configurable at runtime. Was that just an idea that was subsequently
    > rejected?


    Absolutely not! See Apocalype 5
    (http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2002/06/04/apo5.html).

    Ben

    --
    perl -e'print map {/.(.)/s} sort unpack "a2"x26, pack "N"x13,
    qw/1632265075 1651865445 1685354798 1696626283 1752131169 1769237618
    1801808488 1830841936 1886550130 1914728293 1936225377 1969451372
    2047502190/' #
     
    Ben Morrow, Jun 14, 2004
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Andrew Koenig

    Two naive Tkinter questions

    Andrew Koenig, Nov 2, 2003, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    327
    Martin Franklin
    Nov 3, 2003
  2. Terran Melconian

    Naive idiom questions

    Terran Melconian, Jan 31, 2008, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    512
    kdwyer
    Feb 2, 2008
  3. Victor Reyes
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    112
    Victor Reyes
    Sep 15, 2004
  4. Worky Workerson

    Naive threading performance questions

    Worky Workerson, Oct 26, 2006, in forum: Perl Misc
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    195
  5. Replies:
    13
    Views:
    535
    Anno Siegel
    Sep 10, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page