From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ea8ea502d35ca2ce X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-05-10 17:26:26 PST Path: archiver1.sj.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn1feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3AFB3243.9ADF558A@worldnet.att.net> From: James Rogers X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Beginner's Language? References: <9cukad$nn68@news-dxb> <9dbi83$sji$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <87heyu7cqd.fsf@frown.here> <9dc20p$hh15e$1@ID-37382.news.dfncis.de> <9ddfv2$gl3$1@merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU> <9ddkfc$hsgmv$1@ID-22205.news.dfncis.de> <9df1cr$v2k$1@merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 00:26:26 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.86.33.170 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 989540786 12.86.33.170 (Fri, 11 May 2001 00:26:26 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 00:26:26 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: archiver1.sj.google.com comp.lang.ada:7370 Date: 2001-05-11T00:26:26+00:00 List-Id: FM wrote: > > Jochen Schmidt wrote: > >FM wrote: > >> Andreas Krennmair 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