I'm not singling out Perl for lacking syntactic abstraction, I'm pointing out that a horribly brain-damaged language (sigils dereferencing multiple variable namespaces? don't even get me started) cannot be saved without it. Modern Perl practice seems to always involve CPAN modules that attempt to rewrite the syntax of the language one way or another, frequently with prototypes.
I've commented on HN about this before (admittedly less tactfully than I would have liked to), you can read some of my previous comments at:
I'm not trying to invalidate your argument by insinuating that you are the OP, merely pointing out that only a coward hides behind a shell account to carry out an argument founded in trickery and logical fallacy. If you want another reply from me you will have to show up as yourself, I don't think I'll exchange niceties with your puppet any more.
I would have thought that Googling "chromatic perl" is easier than throwing more ad hominem ("coward", "shell", "trickery", "[sock] puppet") implications around. Shame on you; your linked posts had much more substance to them (though of course, recommending Python or Ruby over Perl seems disingenuous after praising Perl for getting lexical scoping and first-class functions correct).
i know who chromatic is, you'll excuse me for assuming that an account created in the middle of the night for the obvious purpose of picking a bone with me (by someone who gives every indication of being a long time HN user) was merely an homage. if that's actually the chromatic of the 5.8 test suite talking then i take back my remark about the shell account.
I've commented on HN about this before (admittedly less tactfully than I would have liked to), you can read some of my previous comments at:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=157183 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=157323
For another (slightly more inflammatory but no less valid) view on the subject there's the classic:
http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/ancient-languages-perl
I'm not trying to invalidate your argument by insinuating that you are the OP, merely pointing out that only a coward hides behind a shell account to carry out an argument founded in trickery and logical fallacy. If you want another reply from me you will have to show up as yourself, I don't think I'll exchange niceties with your puppet any more.