[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Language functionality (was: Re: another mysterious segfault)
From: |
Tim Nelson |
Subject: |
Language functionality (was: Re: another mysterious segfault) |
Date: |
Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:44:39 +1000 (EST) |
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Mark Burgess wrote:
Speed has nothing to do with it. Cfengine was written in C bcause there
was no alternative when I started cfengine. But even a scripting
language will not help avoid a seg fault, if it is caused by a pathology
of the system. I know people have this irrational belief in perl as
language for everything, but you just can't do serious programming in
perl. It's too primitive as a language.
I find this an interesting perspective, because I believe Perl is
one of the most advanced languages (ie. the opposite of primitive). I've
thought of some possibilities, and I'm interested in which one is true.
1. You know of features available in other programming languages (eg.
Lisp macros) that Perl doesn't have, and think that Perl is
primitive due to not having them. I find this unlikely compared
to C, unless you're comparing with a version of Perl earlier than
5, but I'll believe it if Mark indicates that this is what he's
thinking.
2. You believe Perl is primitive due to the way that things like OO
and case statements are implemented (and I agree that they could
be improved; see Perl 6 :) ), ie. you simulate them using other
functionality.
3. You have some other definition of primitive, of which I am
unaware.
4. Something else I haven't thought of
This might be slightly OT, but I use cfengine because it's more
expressive (ie. less code = more functionality) than any other language in
this problem domain. I use Perl for the same reason elsewhere. I'm just
wondering if I've missed something, which is why I'm asking if Mark (B)
could take a moment to indicate which of the four options above is true.
:)
--
Kind Regards,
Tim Nelson
Server Administrator
P: 03 9934 0888
F: 03 9934 0899
E: tim.nelson@webalive.biz
W: www.webalive.biz
WebAlive Technologies
Level 1, Innovation Building
Digital Harbour
1010 La Trobe Street
Docklands Melbourne VIC 3008
This email (including all attachments) is intended solely for the named
addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. If
you receive it in error, please let us know by reply email, delete it from your
system and destroy any copies. This email is also subject to copyright. No
part of it should be reproduced, adapted or transmitted without the written
consent of the copyright owner.
Emails may be interfered with, may contain computer viruses or other defects
and may not be successfully replicated on other systems. We give no
warranties in relation to these matters. If you have any doubts about the
authenticity of an email purportedly sent by us, please contact us immediately.
- Re: another mysterious segfault, (continued)
- Re: another mysterious segfault, Mark Burgess, 2005/08/27
- Re: another mysterious segfault, Lars Damerow, 2005/08/28
- Re: another mysterious segfault, Mark Burgess, 2005/08/28
- Re: another mysterious segfault, Lars Damerow, 2005/08/29
- Re: another mysterious segfault, Ed Brown, 2005/08/29
- Re: another mysterious segfault, Lars Damerow, 2005/08/29
- Re: another mysterious segfault, Frank Smith, 2005/08/29
- Re: another mysterious segfault, Chris Babcock, 2005/08/29
- Re: another mysterious segfault, Lars Damerow, 2005/08/30
- Re: another mysterious segfault, Mark Burgess, 2005/08/30
- Language functionality (was: Re: another mysterious segfault),
Tim Nelson <=
- Re: Language functionality (was: Re: another mysterious segfault), Mark Burgess, 2005/08/31
- Re: Language functionality (was: Re: another mysterious segfault), Tim Nelson, 2005/08/31
- Re: another mysterious segfault, Ed Brown, 2005/08/30
- Re: another mysterious segfault, Frank Smith, 2005/08/29
- Re: another mysterious segfault, Mark Burgess, 2005/08/30
Re: another mysterious segfault, Jeff Sheltren, 2005/08/28