|
|
|
|
|
by kamaal
5429 days ago
|
|
Nobody was down voting you to make themselves right. But the remarks that you made about CPAN to be frank didn't make any sense at all to anybody who has worked with CPAN seriously over years. Both in terms of quantity and quality CPAN beats any other scripting ecosystem by a very great margin. And its really not about the number of the modules. That many number of modules would not have been possible if Perl(syntax, extensions system) was not flexible enough to allow them. The traditional approach used by languages is to first build a set of semantics define a syntax and standard library for it. Then any other development in that language happens through frameworks and libraries. Perl is special in this case that Perl allows syntax extensions through modules. There fore you will find not just Modules to do your task, but also modules that add and extend to exiting Perl syntax with sugar. Perl 6 extends this concept further through grammars. How often and how many language are there today(Counting Python and Ruby especially) that can add something like Moose(Moosex extensions) and other syntactical extension to their language, without breaking backwards compatibility? Python took around 8 years and broke backwards compatibility to make as little changes as context of a for loop and print statement. Now imagine what it would take Python to fix its object system or its scoping problems. |
|
Regards,