Interesting Quote (please kill me)
lukfugl at gmail.com
Fri Aug 12 13:38:17 MDT 2005
On 8/12/05, Jonathan Ellis <jonathan at carnageblender.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:01:09 -0600, "Jacob Fugal" <lukfugl at gmail.com>
> >  Once again, you clipped the part of my response that clarified
> > that your code also depended on a library.
> Sorry; I thought that was obvious. I wasn't trying to pull the wool
> over anyone's eyes;
I'm glad. I didn't think you were, and hoped you weren't. But you
*did* compare the irrelevance of Perl's string processing strength to
an example of the ease of use of a library. I was demonstrating that
Perl also has easy to use libraries.
> only to point out that Stuart's claim that perl's
> string manipulation is a major win in data-intensive applications is
> stupid. Which he's still trying to dodge, but whatever.
If you read Stuart's post again, his claim regarded systems that
"involve a lot of text processing". He never claimed a data-intensive
generalization. Numbers and bits are data too. For a number and bit
data-intensive application, I wouldn't choose Perl, and I don't think
Stuart would either.
More information about the PLUG