Re: [LAU] No batch processing on Linux?

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 09:49:25PM +0100, Chris Cannam wrote:
> Disclaimer: though I'm fond of Perl, I wouldn't really go for writing
> anything big in it if you ever want to read it again. Python is much
> more maintainer-friendly.

Well, you've hooked me with that!

How big are you talking about? Big in any language is hard.

Software architecture is a big part of succeeding with
big projects.

I don't see how the choice of language could ever
be more important than the design of the application.

When it comes to choice of perl, is not just the language
itself.

Perl has incredible testing tools, and testing is a big
part of succeeding with big projects.

Perl is typically developed with modules, and many of the
freely available modules come with extensive tests.

One needs discipline to develop large projects in
C, assembly, lisp or COBOL, too, but we hardly ever hear
of it.

With all the subtle craft of software development,
I find it suprising to hear a truism that
it's hard to read perl. Harder than lisp?
Hard than C? Harder than Forth?

I guess I am reacting to what I imagine is language
preference projected onto absolute judgment on merits of a
particular language.

Perhaps you are speaking from years of software development
experience. In that case, I am reacting to a broad statement
that does not reflect your hard-won wisdom (which I am sure
would be much more interesting to hear about than a truism.)

Or perhaps you are seeking to win over others' mindshare
to the Path of the Snake. In that case, why shouldn't Python's
virtues stand on their own.

But I sense I am going too far with this, as the rest of
your post sounded rather even handed.

All the best to you, (and anyone seeking to develop
in any language!)

Cheers,

Joel

> Chris

-- 
Joel Roth
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user