hi, i was interested if perl is still relevant in this day and age. Perl has been on the decline for a very long time now. Perl 6 (now named 'raku) not being backwards compatible with perl 5 code made the already small perl community even smaller by splitting it in half. A good example is lisp with it’s thousands of different dialects.

Is it still worth using or is it bound to legacy software forever? Like cobol.

  • Kazumara@feddit.deEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    You mean the fact that you can have a hash called %foo, an array called @foo and a scalar called $foo all at the same time?

    Yes, exactly. Those definitions aren’t clashing, so they must have separate namespaces.

    it’s pretty easy to just not do that…

    I wouldn’t do that either, but my colleage apparently did. So far I’m having a harder time reading perl than writing it.

    • dan@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      The way it works is that there’s a symbol table entry for “foo” which has a slot for a hash, scalar, array, glob, etc.

      That leads to some super weird behaviour like, for example, if I declare a scalar, hash and array as “x”:

      $x = "sy";
%x = (foo => "mb");
@x = ("ol", "s!");

      You can access them all independently as you’re aware:

      say "x: ", $x, $x{foo}, @x; # Outputs:  x: symbols!

      But what’s really going to bake your noodle is I can assign the “x” symbol to something else like this:

      *z = *x;

      …and then the same thing works with z:

      say "z: ", $z, $z{foo}, @z; # Outputs:  z: symbols!

      Oneliner if you want to try it:

      perl -E '$x = "sy"; %x = (foo => "mb"); @x = ("ol", "s!"); say "x: ", $x, $x{foo}, @x; *z = *x; say "z: ", $z, $z{foo}, @z;'

      Congratulations! You now know more about one of Perl’s really weird internals than I’d wager most Perl programmers (I have literally never used any of the above for anything actually productive!)