Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 08:10:49 +0000 From: Priyadarshan <bsd@bontempi.net> To: Dimitri Minaev <minaev@gmail.com>, Allen <bsd_atog@comcast.net>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "Simple" Languages in FreeBSD Message-ID: <1467360649.3751988.653960161.06009D74@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <57762256.7070106@gmail.com> References: <20160630175243.063e07a7@KoggyBSD.org> <57762256.7070106@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016, at 07:57, Dimitri Minaev wrote:
> On 07/01/2016 01:52 AM, Allen wrote:
>=20
> > Literally anyone who responds with an opinion, I'm interested. Being
> > easy to learn for someone who isn't great with Math but does understand
> > Unix is a plus but not a requirement. I was starting to teach myself
> > Ruby on a Linux box I was using for a while and Ruby did seem to be
> > going OK, but a lot of the FreeBSD Books I've bought recommend Perl,
> > and I've also had just as many reasons from people saying to try
> > Python, so basically any Language and what reasons would be great.
>=20
> A huge part of my job is automation in UNIX and 99% of it is done in=20
> Bash. IMHO, shell is a must for anyone working with UNIX, even though=20
> it's not really a programming language in the common sense. About 15=20
> years ago I used Perl often and I remember it as a very natural language=
=20
> very similar to shell, but better. The syntax may sometimes look=20
> strange, but most of the time Perl by default does exactly what you want=
=20
> it to do.
>=20
> The Python is in fashion these days. They say it's easy to learn and has=
=20
> a clean syntax. Perhaps, I'm getting too old to learn new languages, but=
=20
> I found Python verbose and awkward. The trend introduced by the=20
> object-oriented languages of the last decades makes the programmer use=20
> various helpers, wrappers, proxy objects, singletons and other=20
> doubtlessly useful but clumsy contraptions. For example, let's write a=20
> simple script that runs a program, reads its output and feeds it to the=20
> stdin of another program. In Perl, it's as straightforward as this:
>=20
> open(P1, "ls -la |");
> open(P2, "|grep ^d");
> while (my $l =3D <P1>) {
> print P2 $l;
> }
>=20
> Quite natural, eh? Now, Python:
>=20
> import subprocess
> a =3D subprocess.Popen(["ls", "-la"], stdout=3Dsubprocess.PIPE)
> b =3D subprocess.Popen(["grep", "^d"], stdin=3Dsubprocess.PIPE,=20
> stdout=3Dsubprocess.PIPE)
> ls =3D a.communicate()[0]
> r =3D b.communicate(input=3Dls)[0]
> print(r.decode())
>=20
> I'm sure there are other ways to do the same in a more concise way using=
=20
> external Python modules like 'sh', but the idiomatic way, AFAIK, is the=20
> one used above.
>=20
> Besides, Python, however logical it is, may be unpredictable. For
> example:
>=20
> In [1]: a=3D99
> In [2]: b=3D999
> In [3]: a is 99
> Out[3]: True
> In [4]: b is 999
> Out[4]: False
>=20
> I found Ruby to be more like Perl. Even though it is an object-oriented=20
> language, it has many shortcuts that make things simpler, like using $_=20
> variable to store the last read string. But I never liked OOP and put=20
> Ruby away.
>=20
> So, from the practical point of view I would vote for Perl. Some would=20
> say it's too old, but hey, it's still more popular than Ruby, according=20
> to TIOBE index: http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe_index
>=20
> But the popularity shouldn't be crucial in the language choice. If=20
> you're going to learn programming languages for fun, have a look at some=
=20
> less popular alternatives. One of them is my favorite Tcl. It's a=20
> language with very simple syntax, underestimated but powerful. Many=20
> utilities used in other languages, were born in Tcl: Sqlite, Expect and=20
> Tk GUI, to name a few. It's still very popular as a built-in language in=
=20
> network hardware. It may lack some libraries supporting modern protocols=
=20
> (AMQP, for example), but programming in Tcl just feels great.
>=20
> Another interesting language is Scheme. There are many dialects of this=20
> uncommon but beautiful language. Racket has one of the largest=20
> libraries, but it's rather a language for students and teachers than for=
=20
> the real world applications. Chicken Scheme and Guile are way more=20
> practical and just as rich.
>=20
> Other options include Erlang and Haskell. Go language is also=20
> interesting, but it is IMHO a language for real programmers.
Thanks for this.
Python, Ruby, Haskell, Julia, even PHP, they have all something
to offer.
One should really try to feel what is closer to one=E2=80=99s way of
thinking about problems, since the language can really help, or
really be a hindrance.
Our company uses mainly Common Lisp, but we are also a Perl shop.
It is interesting to see new employees using so-called =C2=ABnew=C2=BB
languages, slowly but surely getting interested in the =C2=ABold=C2=BB
Perl 5 (aka Perl Raptor), and ultimately adopting it as main
language to =C2=ABthink=C2=BB about problems.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1467360649.3751988.653960161.06009D74>