[carlmr]

>It's ironic that a language built "for human communication" by a linguist (what could possibly go wrong?) is harder to read and to reason about that programming languages built around logic.

It's not like having a fascination with weird language quirks makes you have good taste in languages. Especially because weird quirks are the end of usability.

[daotoad]

Perl is essentially a pigdin or creole language composed of C, shell, awk, sed and POSIX concepts with bits of Lisp thrown in.

If you know Unix, you will already know about 80% of perl. If you know Perl well, you already know a lot of Unix concepts.

Perl is a pain to learn if you don't have a solid Unix background. However, IME, if you acknowledge the sources Perl draws from, look at how they're integrated, and spend some time learning the underlying technical culture, it actually simplifies the learning process.

Interestingly enough, it's also easier to learn a natural language if you spend some time learning the underlying culture.

[carlmr]

>Perl is essentially a pigdin or creole language composed of C, shell, awk, sed and POSIX concepts with bits of Lisp thrown in.

That mixing and matching seems exactly like the quirks a linguist would pick up that lower usability (at least for the general user, Unix users are kind of used to being thrown in the deep end of the usability pool).