Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Perl Programming Technology

Developer Spotlight: Damian Conway 38

Posted by timothy from the nuggets-of-perl dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Builder AU interview Perl guru Damian Conway to talk about Perl 6, his reasons for choosing Perl over other languages, PHP, Model-driven development and the first Open Source Developers Conference held this week in Melbourne, Australia."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Developer Spotlight: Damian Conway More

Developer Spotlight: Damian Conway

Comments Filter:
  • One of the links in the article points to the Open Source Developers Conference- that seems more interesting than the article, in my opinion. Yeah, it's an interesting interview, and yeah, Damian's a cool guy, but it's nothing out of the ordinary. But OSDC... that looks pretty cool.

    - dshaw
    • And what's sad is that I'm sitting in the same university that's hosting the conference, and this is the first I'm hearing of it...

      Just rechecked my staff email, to see if I even got one of those global emails that everyone ignores which mentioned it, but there's no reference to it...
    • So far pretty great for a first time confrence. The dinner wasn't bad either...

      Damian was a great speaker on Perl 6 and has got me (a PHP guy) seriously looking at it for some stuff that's on the to-do list.
    • It's been pretty impressive for a first attempt, even to somebody like me who has had the privilege of sitting in on the preparations for OSDC and who has been there and done that in another life time.

      Damian's participation is certainly an asset, and he is far from the only open source notable for whom it's a home town show, not that we have been short of visitors from afar either.

      In two days, we have had no no shows on the speaker front, no doubt reflecting the efforts of the papers committee which also

  • Perl Vs. Java (Score:3, Interesting)

    by justanyone ( 308934 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @01:20AM (#10960573) Homepage Journal

    From the Article:

    why not say, Java?
    Leaving aside the uniqueness of the Perl community, from a purely technical perspective Java is far too restrictive for the kind of work I do. And it's far too demanding on the programmer. Sure, it has a lot of great libraries that make it easy to get particular things done, but I didn't want to do those particular things. And certainly not in the ways Java would require me to do them.

    This makes a wonderful point about Perl "There's More Than One Way To Do It" == TMTOWTDI. This is good and bad (like most powerful tools) in that writing hard-to-read code is certainly easy. However, the loose-type is great for projects that don't really need to differentiate between long and integer and float. Hey, it's a number, that's good enough. We read it in, we do stuff with it, we write it out. If it doesn't break when we get a different type coming through than we expected, great.

    Yes, Java is demanding. I don't mind demanding. I do mind it being private. And, Java isn't open source. Perl is by nature open source - you CAN'T hide the source if you distribute code to someone. That's the beauty of it.

  • Language agnosticism needs to be preached more... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Roman_(ajvvs) ( 722885 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @01:28AM (#10960605) Journal
    Balanced words from a sensible man. But I do sense some conflict in his views on languages.
    For example, his explanation of the many layered concepts required of a java program. Many of those concepts, while visible in java, also exist in other languages, so I don't necessarily agree that java is as "conceptually overloaded" as he suggests. The structure of any program even in its most basic form requires understanding of programming concepts. Many programming concepts are language agnostic (procedures ~ functions ~ methods) and only differ in their implementation.

    Never having used PERL, I can't really comment on relative merits, but having used various languages such as Scheme, Java, .NET, C/C++, I do find that to write a solid program in any language there is a required minimum of understanding of basic programming concepts and the how they fit in the design of the language you're using. I agree with him with regards to the danger of language specialization for this very reason. Recursiveness in Scheme is highly appropriate and key to efficient execution. As it happens the same concept is highly useful when traversing trees (which I wrote a few weeks ago using a recursive function in .NET). If I had never used scheme and understood what works and what doesn't in that language I don't think my tree traversal would have been as efficient in its implementation. I didn't replicate any code or structure from Scheme, I simply applied the concept in what best suited the language and the situation.

    A good interview, overall.

  • All of these approaches are based on a false premise, the same desperate illusion that every programmer clings to: that the universe of problems to be solved is homogeneous, and that our task as programmers is predictable enough for one approach, one methodology, one language, one standard library to fit all problems...

    It's refreshing to read that a respected programmer in specific language not being too closed minded about other programing languages or solutions.

  • Good stuff (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lux55 ( 532736 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @05:21AM (#10961487) Homepage Journal
    I especially like the quote at the end of the article, I'll have to remember that one.

    Damian's insights on programming languages (the same with computers in general) as tools not in competition is spot on, as well as his comments regarding the (impossibility of) perfection of programming languages. He has a refreshingly simple way of putting it too -- he's a natural teacher.

    His comments also provide a strong validation of why there's always room for one more (ie. Perl 6) that pretty much nullifies the nay-sayers.

    The interesting thing (for me) is how his comments pertain to other non-mainstream languages (ie. Lisp, Haskell, etc.) and their place within the whole of computer programming. Even if Perl 6 is never widely accepted, it will still sufficiently *influence* the mainstream of programming to help shape better tools down the road (ie. Perl 6's regular expressions are downright sci-fi, but will be very useful once they're ready).

    So the Lisp-ers who are worried their language has fallen by the wayside should take comfort instead of getting upset about the influences of Lisp on mainstream languages. That's what it was meant to do, ultimately.
  • I agreed with almost all of what he said, except for the "applauding" of the concept of licensing software developers. Boo! Hiss!
    • I don't understand why people are so diametrically opposed to the idea of making software development into a profession. The sensible case, rather than the strawman case, does not require all software to be built by licensed professionals - but software for some jobs would be required to be developed by people recognized as qualified to do. Government contracts often dictate development processes and standards already - it makes sense that the software tools themselves used for essential work be developed a
      • The sensible case, rather than the strawman case, does not require all software to be built by licensed professionals

        In theory, yes. In practice, almost never the case.

        When is the last time you went to an unlicensed professional in a "licensed" profession whom you did not personally know?
        • When is the last time you went to an unlicensed professional in a "licensed" profession whom you did not personally know?

          If you are building a deck or working on a motorcycle or taking care of a headache you will use off the shelf tools or amateur help, more difficult tasks require a professional. I dislike arguing by analogy, but in the case of making software development a profession it is apt to compare it with existing professions.

          Much software is so complicated and essential that it should be tre

        • Hmmm..
          • Installing a new water heater.
          • Installing three new outlets and associated wiring and circuit breaker (had to have the last checked by a licensed individual, by law).
          • Installing a new stove and fridge.
          • Changing car's oil and filters (and belts).
          And, that is just in the past two months. Unless the job is something really complicated (and I do not understand it/have experience with it), or I do not have time, I will either hire a handyman or do it myself.

          InnerWeb

  • He states that Java (and by implication other C style languages) are over complex syntactically and cognitively. Sorry , thats wrong. Sure , for the mickey mouse "hello world" example he has a point but Java isn't designed for 1 line hello world programs , its syntax (we'll ignore the horrid JVMs) is designed for large scale complex systems and for large scale complex systems you need complex data structure abilities and flow of control. Its horses for courses , you want to write some mickey mouse program t
    • Having written large programs in several languages, I think Perl's features, if used properly, make writing large programs much easier.

      I agree with you that C will rule OS and database system kind of programs.

    • He states that Java (and by implication other C style languages) are over complex syntactically and cognitively. Sorry , thats wrong. Sure , for the mickey mouse "hello world" example he has a point but Java isn't designed for 1 line hello world programs , its syntax (we'll ignore the horrid JVMs) is designed for large scale complex systems and for large scale complex systems you need complex data structure abilities and flow of control.

      Java doesn't provide for complex data structures or complex control

  • memories, misty watercolour memories (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dankelley ( 573611 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @08:35AM (#10962052)
    I've used a whack of languages (I once loved APL, to put a date-stamp on this), but only one passes the memory test, and that's C.

    What I mean is that I don't have to look in a manual to write C code. C is simple enough that I can just open a window and start typing. (I've been known to use cat to write simple C programs.)

    I do, however, have to look in a manual to write Perl. What the heck is the order of the arguments to split? How the heck does perl do else-if? Am I supposed to use a $ or a @ here? I am pretty sure that Perl is hard to remember because of the "many ways" aspect; all of those ways get blended together in memory. If there were fewer ways, then the mind might better remember the path to take.

    Being hard to remember is a flaw, for a language that is so well suited to quick, one-off, applications. Too bad Perl 6 is introducing yet more ways to do "hello world". Seriously, do we need this new say when we already have print? Now users have to remember which one takes the newlines. Very little extra functionality, at the cost of more details to keep in mind.

    Having said all of this, of course I'll use Perl for my next 3-liner. But it won't be perl 6.

    • Yea, I see where you're coming from, and I've given it a little thought over time. However, I feel exactly the opposite. I need a manual for C/C++ but not for perl. I find perl fits my natural way of thinking. It just FEELS right to me. No doubt you feel the same about C. I think it just depends on how someones mind works.

      • The "memory test" is somewhat flaky, IMO. I can write C++, C, Perl, and shell scripts without looking at a manual, and have a pretty good chance of getting stuff to compile ("no syntactic errors") on the first try, and still a reasonable chance of getting it to work on that first try, too. I'm not saying that I'm a guru in these languages, only that I've used them all quite a bit, so I now remember them. I was getting to the same point with Java, then I stopped using it, and now I need to look up a fair

    • I am pretty sure that Perl is hard to remember because of the "many ways" aspect

      I suspect that the main reason C passes your memory test while Perl does not is that you use C much more frequently than Perl. Use leads to familiarity. The fact that there are many programmers (myself included) who can remember Perl syntax, and more readily than C, supports this claim.

      Another point is that Perl has a large number of built-in functions, including your pained split. That you may have to look up the exact order
  • I can't get the site to finish loading. I only get the first Q/A and the first line of the second Q, and the site hangs. Anybody got a mirror?

  • Interview is okay, the conference is fantastic (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Sitting at OSDC and it's been a damn cool conference so far. Really impressed to see Perl, Python and PHP *actually* talking to each other!

    Highlights for me so far: Nat Torkington's talk about O'Reilly Research, Anthony Baxter's talk on shtoom (cool VoIP client/server written in pure Python).
    Scariest talk: Damian's talk on Perl 6 -- how many new operators can you have in a language? And what's with that zipper operator using the yen character???

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Close