Perl 5.18.1. Yes, it's alive

Re:Perl 5.18.1. Yes, it's alive by cmccabe on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @06:15AM (#6204876)

OK, I admit it was a cheap shot. But I'm not the only one in the thread making it. And the quote is definitely bizarre. Can you explain how it's related to Perl?

I agree that Perl has done a very good job with backwards compatibility. I have run many ancient Perl scripts that all work fine, and yes, CPAN is huge. I never liked the language, but that for other reasons, not worth going into here. Feel free to mod me down or whatever, just speaking what is on my mind.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Perl 5.18.1. Yes, it's alive by mpyne on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @11:55AM (#6206464)

> OK, I admit it was a cheap shot. But I'm not the only one in the thread making it.

"I wasn't the only one" is a very weak justification for actions.

Either way, why does the quote have to be related to Perl?

I've been reading Stroustroup's 4th Edition of TC++PL and it has quotes at the beginning of every chapter, not all of which pertain directly to C++. Is that not Stroustroup's right as the author to choose whichever quote he feels best appropriate?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Perl 5.18.1. Yes, it's alive by berntb on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @06:38AM (#6204953)

>>OK, I admit it was a cheap shot. But I'm not the only one in the thread making it.

Thanks for making HN a bit more like bad Reddit today, with even more brainless language wars!

[Edit: Seriously, why even write if you have nothing to add but a "cheap shot" -- which is even written by others ("not the only one")!? Do you try to destroy this website?]

[Edit 2: I realize that the language wars idiots in some communities usually votes up comments like this about Perl, but take some damn responsibility for HN quality. Karma is not money.]

>>Can you explain how [the quote is] related to Perl?

If you're curious, please check the comment by Mithaldu, written before my first comment.

[ Parent | on HN ]