Re: Beginner's Language?

[James Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net>]

FM wrote:
> 
> Jochen Schmidt <jsc@dataheaven.de> wrote:
> >FM wrote:
> >> Andreas Krennmair <a.krennmair@aon.at> wrote:
> 
> >>>Of course, this is not the best example, since Perl has a syntax that is
> >>>not the optimum for beginners.
> >>
> >> Perl's syntax is the closest thing I've seen to a natural
> >> syntax in a programming language.
> >
> >?? Is that meant as a joke or what????
> 
> I was dead serious. Its syntax looks more like a result
> of evolution than design and that's what distinguishes
> *natural* from *artificial*.
> 

Aha, comp.lang.Ada now ventures into the off-topic discussion of
creationism versus evolution theory.

I can see why someone might believe that the Perl syntax is a
product of purely chaotic forces, with no elements of planning or
design. On a closer inspection, however, one must admit that 
features of Perl could never have evolved from C, its original
syntactic progenitor. 

For example, look at the I/O model for Perl. No loops required.
That could never come from C.

Example:

  @contents = <>;

The above statement reads all of Standard Input into a vector
named "@contents".

If there is any relationship with C it must be in the form of
a genetic mutation. If so, what is the C genetic feature altered
to produce this Perl feature? 

Note also that the theory of evolution always procedes from the
simple to the complex. On a feature-by-feature comparison most
of Perl's syntax is simpler than C's. Perl's data model is certainly
simpler than C's. This is progress directly opposite evolution.

No, the evidence clearly shows that Perl is not the result of
evolution, but merely the result of a brilliant but undisciplined
intelligence.

Jim Rogers
Colorado Springs, Colorado USA