Re: Re: Types in Mathematica
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg62879] Re: [mg62805] Re: Types in Mathematica
- From: Ed Peschko <esp5 at pge.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 23:12:23 -0500 (EST)
- References: <dlp2ci$le$1@smc.vnet.net> <200511200950.EAA04496@smc.vnet.net> <dls4vp$mmc$1@smc.vnet.net> <dm1ak3$i1n$1@smc.vnet.net> <dmjrb8$5u6$1@smc.vnet.net> <dmm2tp$nmo$1@smc.vnet.net> <dmrt6i$6le$1@smc.vnet.net> <200512032352.SAA15917@smc.vnet.net> <dmui9j$ml5$1@smc.vnet.net> <200512051841.NAA21160@smc.vnet.net>
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 01:41:14PM -0500, Paul Abbott wrote: > In article <dmui9j$ml5$1 at smc.vnet.net>, > Sseziwa Mukasa <mukasa at jeol.com> wrote: > > > The ever contrarian Larry Wall of course decided that Perl, the > > sin qua non of weak typing, would attempt to resolve that ambiguity. > > The low regard with which Perl programmers are generally held in the > > Computer Science community, a special circle of hell previously reserved > > for Visual Basic users, is a by product of that fact. That 'special circle of hell' that you speak of is news to me. I've never heard of it; I know that perl has its detractors, but for every detractor, there's a fervent supporter on communities like slashdot (http://www.slashdot.org) and digg (http://www.digg.org). As for an impression of mathematica users, I've never seen one (positive or negative). Mathematica seems to be off this particular map. As for weak typing, its not necessarily a bad thing - its a damn *productive* thing in the case of perl. That being said, optional, strong(er) typing wouldn't be that bad an item to have. Perl6 is adding this, but its a long, slow slog; perl6 isn't expected to be out for a couple of years, at the minimum. Ed
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Re: Re: Types in Mathematica
- From: Zhengji Li <zhengji.li@Gmail.com>
- Re: Re: Re: Types in Mathematica
- References:
- Re: Types in Mathematica
- From: Paul Abbott <paul@physics.uwa.edu.au>
- Re: Types in Mathematica